Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

Lords of Chaos (book)

A dispute between me and Cyrus XIII about the NPOV of my contributions to Lords of Chaos (book) has escalated into an edit war. I can't see any substance in his accusations. Lords of Chaos has some - mildly put- controversial content. I disagree with this content, but I definitely think it has to be included in the article. In my opinion Cyrus XIII is referring to WP:NPOV and WP:EL in an attempt to keep this content out of Wikipedia, thus censoring the article. We are both experienced editors and I don't think that one of use is going to make the 'mistake' of braking the 3 revert rule. Zara1709 15:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this is quite old already, and probably this was the wrong noticeboard, there is something concerning the reliability of a source here: Is an article by Kevin Coogan a reliable source for the following information:

"The book itself [Lords of Chaos], however, is not a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term, in part because Moynihan co-wrote the book with Didrik Saderlind, a former music critic for a mainstream Norwegian paper who is now an editor at Playboy. Moreover, Feral House editor Adam Parfrey clearly wanted to publish a popular book on the strange universe of black metal rather than a political polemic."

I think it is rather important to state that Didrik Saderlind is not, unlike Michael Moynihan (journalist), the other author of the book, or Varg Vikernes, the main subject of it, an extreme right activist. There is no reason to delete that kind of information. Zara1709 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

www.onlineworldofwrestling.com

Apologies for bringing this to the administrators noticeboard, I'm sure there is a better place for this (and if so please point me in the right direction). How does one judge reliable sources? I have found a site which appears on 2522 different Wikipedia pages, called www.onlineworldofwrestling.com [1] and am finding that a large number of articles are relying on this site as not just their primary source of information, but the sole source of information. Considering that anyone can pay the $25.00 to submit a profile to this site, and then in turn have it used to source a Wikipedia article, I have my doubts as to its reliability. Is this cause for concern, or no big deal? Burntsauce 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard exists for exactly this purpose. WilyD 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(the above has been copied to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard at the suggestion of WilyD.)

This is unfamiliar territory for me, but I am writing to inquire about the reliability of sources such as onlineworldofwrestling.com which are being used as primary and in most cases sole sources to create articles about professional wresters, many of whom are living people. Burntsauce 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears it has less control over content than Wikipedia - here it doesn't cost anything to fix them, there it does. I would believe this is not a reference at all, or if it is, it is certainly not a reliable source and should not be the sole reference. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Online equivalent of a vanity press, although they do claim to have some standards. Still not a reliable source by a long, long way. Sandstein 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) If this is consensually deemed as an unreliable source, what is to be done about the hundreds, neigh, thousands of articles in Category:American professional wrestlers and similar categories? Burntsauce 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I picked one at random, Colt Cabana, and that has plenty of different sources. You need to make a list of all the articles that only use the unreliable source, or just get that source removed from all articles and put on a blacklist. Though note that I don't really know how this works. Hopefully those who post here regularly will give better advice. Carcharoth 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a handful of examples for consideration: Rodney Begnaud, Dwayne Bruce, David Cash, Jonathan Coachman, and Mark Copani. Burntsauce 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, someone familiar with the area of professional wrestling I can confirm everything that I've seen at this site has been researched pretty carefully and reported accurately. I've also spoken to the creator of the site and he seems reliable enough for a source here. Burntsauce, you're just looking for reasons to falsely use WP:BLP and WP:V on the Pro Wrestling WikiProject, which you have been known to do. — Moe ε 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Moe Epsilon. Onlineworldofwrestling.com is perhaps they best professional wrestling site in existence, sometimes even providing more accurate and detailed information than the official company websites. Gavyn Sykes 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, you have been warned once before regarding your personal attacks. You are welcome to cite examples where I've falsely applied the BLP policy, otherwise I strongly urge you to retract the statement. Thank you. Burntsauce 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing your judgement isn't a personal attack, I thought this had been explained to you. You want to know where? Warrior (wrestler), Rodney Anoai, Stacy Keibler, need I go on? — Moe ε 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source as well when dealing with the biographies of living people. It may be the "best movie site in existence" just as onlineworldofwrestling may be the best pro-wrestling site in existence. That is irrelevant, and does necessarily not make it a reliable source. WP:ILIKEIT does not apply. Burntsauce 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fair comparison. IMDB is not considered reliable because anyone can edit it and add false information. Not anyone can edit the profiles of Onlineworldofwrestling.com. Nikki311 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way Moe, edits like this [2] are totally unacceptable. Burntsauce 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to you as well. You haven't made a accurate case saying that it is unrelaible and cleverly dodged the fact that I can cite places where BLP was used uncorrectly on your part. And FYI, you're entirely wrong. BLP doesn't apply to the Terry Gerwin article. The commentary has to be contentious for you to remove it and it wasn't simple as that. There is no BLP concern there. BLP doesn't apply everytime an article is unsourced. — Moe ε 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Moe. The Hybrid 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, OWW is a mixed bag in my view. For the most part, they are accurate..however they have had mistakes as well. In my opinion, they are basically a glorified fansite that wrestling fans take too seriously at times. Sourcing for wrestling articles is an issue: but frankly OWW shouldn't be the only source for articles. I've seen it used as the only source several times, as it seems to be the "default" link and reference listed if people can't (or simply don't want to) find anything else. RobJ1981 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting the link isn't really a fair choice since this site contains info concerning the early years of several undoubtly notable wrestlers, however wwe.com and tnawrestling.com should be used more often for info inside kayfabe excluding injuries and other legitimate issues, I find it hard to assume good faith here considering Burnsauce's attitude towards wrestling articles in the past. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce what is this, the crusade to destroy WP:PW? Anyway, OWW is a reliable source as it provides wrestling results years back and without that website, who knows what would happen with wrestling articles today. Blacklisting it would destroy WP:PW and most of its articles, including John Cena, Dave Bautista and The Undertaker. Cena I've nominated for FA, Batista and Taker are GA and they all have links to OWW. Davnel03 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it flawless? No, can anyone edit it? no - can current independent wrestlers get their profile on there for cash? sure they can. But are ALL the profiles there because someone paid for them? Not even close, the majority - 90-99% of them are created and researched by the contributors to the site, not for monetary reasons nor vanity as has been implied. Yeah maybe the "Kidz Kewl" profile is a vanity project, which is why WP:PW has a rule of thumb that says "Just cause it's on Onlineworldofwrestling" doesn't mean it's automatically notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. And nor should it in my view be the ONLY source for an article. That's profiles covered, but the site has another and probably more important function, it's a repository of match results from a lot of federations over a long period of time - which is used as a reference when article mention specific matches (the overcitation in the wrestling articles that cause EVERY match to be cited in places is a direct result of the missapplication of WP:BLP that Burntsauce has championed). Are the results reliable? I'd say yes, they're basically a recap of what people have seen on TV, except you can't use your own personal viewing of the program as a source, you need a secondary source - Onlineworldofwrestling provides such a secondary source, it's neutral and recaps the results and happenings without it being a review or a rant or anything like that, just a run down of results and happenings usually. Those results can be verified against 3-4-5 different independent sources in a heartbeat to prove that they are indeed correct 99% of the time. I agree that articles that only cite OWOW need to have more sources added to help establish the notability of the subject but it shouldn't be blacklisted. MPJ-DK 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... with a entry criteria of "no yard tards"[3] and 25$ (or a dvd the site owner doesn't have yet) and "1 year of full time wrestling" I can't believe this is even a debate! OWW is a tertiary source, and as such should usually NOT be relied upon by as the sole source in an article. Also given the exceptionally low entry criteria the site is unusable as a gauge of notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you are unfamiliar with professional wrestling. The "no yard tards" rule and the $25 submission to have a profile placed on the site makes it extremly more of a valuable source. This requirement will put a limit on unnotable wrestlers going on the site, and I think the owner has been doing a great job of that. We also have a rule at WP:PW that not every wrestler on OWW is notable. No one said we should be using these as a source alone, but blacklisting it because Burntsauce has it in for the professional wrestling WikiProject, is completely nonsense. No one is using as a gauge of notability either. Your points are entirely moot. — Moe ε 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to know anything to know that this site is about as reliable as any self-published source on the internet. Also, continued attacks on the credibility of those who disagree with you only serve to highlight the fact that you have no actual defense of the credibility of the website. I see no claims that the website has any of the hallmarks of a real reliable source: editorial review, etc. It's not our job to prove it's unreliable - It's your job to prove it is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, here's evidence it's a reliable source, I've picked a line from The Undertakers article - but finally defeated Kennedy in a Last Ride match at Armageddon 2006[128], which directs to this, which quote: LAST RIDE MATCH: The Undertaker defeated Mr. Ken Kennedy.. The Undertaker tombstoned Mr. Kennedy on top of the hurse and then put the bloody Kennedy inside of the hurse.. . Now, J.smith, please tell me why OWW isn't reliable having just provided you with a perfectly good example of why it is reliable. EDIT: By the way, Burntsauce has gone AWOL since this started... Davnel03 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, edited, proof-read, and things like that. There isn't much checking or editing of any sort going on on the site under discussion. What is a hurse anyway? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Davne103, that made me smile. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I do not feel that this site is a very reliable source. It has lots of rumors, is far from comprehensive, and has lots of other errors/mistakes. While it is not directly user-generated, much of the info comes from contributors who e-mail them, and a lot of it is not even formatted or checked for spelling. It is a decent fansite, but to use it as a source is asking for trouble. In fact, there is some strange notion that every match by a wrestler needs to be cited, which is probably just a bit over the top, and we should use published sources to document notable facts, not predetermined wrestling matches. Biggspowd 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match event in a wrestling article. Sadly it has happened time and time again that even wrestling results and title lists have been blanked citing "WP:BLP says it should all be cited or deleted" (or references to "mail from Jimbo"), forcing the pro wrestling project to get down and in effect oversource everything to the exessive extent it's seen in places. Considering that this user has the backing of several admins it's seen as a defacto rule and thus to avoid having articles gutted down to "XXX is a pro wrestler" articles go in the opposite direction. It's not by choice, well not the choice of the article editors but the choice of those who remove everything not sourced. MPJ-DK 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is policy and is non-negotiable. Citations facilitate verifiability. None of this is new. Yes, if something is unsourced and someone questions it... it needs to be cited or removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL this is a circular argument isn't it? someone says "it's over cited", I explain why then someone goes "Well it's policy" - Now I'm just waiting for someone come in and say "man those wrestling articles are seriously overcited" to keep this infinity loop of logic going ad nauseum. Count me out, I'm getting off the carousel. MPJ-DK 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Being "over-cited" isn't prohibited in policy. Your attitude of "there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match" is not backed by policy and is contrary to the project's core philosophies. If you want something to be included in an article... find a source and cite it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Racial Slur Database", "Roadjunky.com", and two personal homepages

I would appreciate editors' thoughts on the third-party reliability of The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com and two personal homepages that copy verbatim an essay entitled "Japanyes;THE THIRD EDITION" of publicly unverifiable origin [4][5]. All four citations are used to justify the following contentious and exceptional clause in the gaijin article: "...[gaijin] is considered a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied." J Readings 10:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "Louis Leclerc" a noted expert in this field of study? I don't see anything that sujusts that this is the case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. No, he is not a Japanese linguist, a lexicographer, a literary expert or even a noted Japanese specialist (to my knowledge.) This is part of the problem. Another editor insists that because these sources can be found on the internet, the word gaijin must be considered a racial slur by default. I'd also appreciate your opinion on sites like The Racial Slur Database and Roadjunky.com. Personally, I'm very skeptical of these sources, but I'd like to know what others think. J Readings 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi in that regard. I don't see any evidence that those are reliable sources. Also, you might want to point out that drawing conclusions based on evidence is the definition of original research. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lauder

A (terribly polite) dispute at Talk:Lauder on the reliability of older historical works when these do not correspond with more recent interpretations. Any input much appreciated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a Reliable Sources issue... it is more a NPOV issue. The older works are certainly reliable by our definition, even if they are, arguably, outdated. This could be solved by textual attribution of who said what (and when) and an explanation of what current scholarship is. Don't claim either view is "correct"... simply present them both with explanation of the pros and cons for each argument. Blueboar 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Without delving into the particulars of the situation if older sources disagree with equally legitimate newer sources then the newer sources are usually more relevant. However, if old disagrees with new there is often an important story to be told there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, newer scholarship is usually more relevant (but not always more accurate)... The point is that when there is a dispute between different sources we don't make the judgement as to which is "right" or "wrong"... we discribe both views and discuss the dispute in a neutral tone. Blueboar 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument here has been consistant. We are indebted to pre-twentieth century scholars for their indefatigable locating and deciphering of ancient manuscipts, documents, and charters. Without their industry today's generation would have been in difficulties. Most if not all of these industrious people were scholars, some, Like Sir William Fraser, of very high regard. Who is suddenly to say that late twentieth century scholars are superior (unless they have some sort of X-Ray vision with documents)? One of the big problems we are faced with is the interpretation of the ancient writings or, indeed, events. It is common for several handwriting experts to disagree. Moreover, as Joseph Bain (another great Victorian scholar) points out, what of the huge number of documents which we no loger have.

In the case of Lauder/Lauderdale we appear to have no extant charters before de Morville. This is much the same throughout Scotland. It does not mean that that was where history commenced. When we get back to the pre-1200s we enter a very grey area as far as verifiability is concerned throughout Great Britain and not just in Scotland. If I find twenty books written between, say, 1700 and 1920, all citing similar things albeit in slightly different formats, and all those books citing even older documentations, should I say all these scholars were crétins just because they reached similar conclusions or they were not born in the 20th century or held a different conception of Scottish history to a variety of sceptics or purists of today?

We on Wikipedia strive to construct articles which will be informative and to the best of our ability have a semblance of truth. We don't come here to construct fantasy. If I were writing about Paris and Helen would you delete the article? Because, lets face it, how many accurate sources are there for the existance of all the Greek myths that we still love and even make films about? If detractors of articles, critics of what has been presented, scoff and say 'what a story', fine. But if it is adequately sourced should they be wrecking or deleting the article just because of their own personal opinions? I say, comment if you must, add consturctive comment with sources if you can. David Lauder 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Recently, a feature article by Debbie Nathan appearing in Counterpunch was challenged as an unreliable source in a biographical article. The article is factual journalism, not editorial content, and the challenger has not stated specific concrete objections to the article, since there may be BLP issues. Nathan is a feature writer for New York Magazine, as well as a published author. I don't personally see the sourcing problem, but I respect the editor who's raising the objection, so I wanted to get the views of more editors. --Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading CounterPunch, I'm not really sure if they're really a reliable source. They have an editorial staff of two people, with the intent to bring "stories that the corporate press never prints". Just my .02 though Corpx 06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of their articles, they write from the partisan fringe position that thinks the Democrats are insufficiently liberal. That fringe really exists, but it is very much a minority position. Using Counterpunch as a source is likely to suffer from WP:UNDUE problems if not handled carefully. As Corpx pointed out, they don't have a great depth of review in the editorial department, and the combination of lesser review, a muckraking attitude, and a strong political bias makes them somewhat suspect as a source. GRBerry 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is this an article where that bias towards the left makes a sufficient difference? I'm not that sure. Hornplease 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, CounterPoint published a feature story from Debbie Nathan, a mainstream journalist (New York) and author. Her work has also appeared or been referenced in Slate, Gawker, and other publications. My view is that the distinction between a news article and editorial content is important in determining whether the source is reliable, and, in this case, Nathan's article is not advocating a political position, but covering her subject in more depth & with a more critical eye. It's a crime story, and none of those involved are "political people," for lack of a better term. The slant of the publication would be more important if we were referencing its editorials rather than its factual articles. --Ssbohio 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder. Counterpunch is of course a muck-racking, if highly informed, minor netmag, but it has actually proved far more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post on the Iraqi war. It is for example perhaps the only Western newspaper to have a Western reporter in Iraq who doesn't rely on field informants, but risks his neck to travel all over the country and provide eye-witness accounts of local conditions. The NYTs and many others, as far as I know, have given up on this as too high a risk for their inhouse professionals. It specializes in publishing things that the major news outlets ignore. It is certainly a better source than Fox News, or any corporative media operation controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Both those middle-of-the-road centralist and unquestionably reliable sources, as defined by fame and print-run I suppose, had to backtrack, apologize, release staff writers, and generally readjust much of their editorializing when it came out that very little, if any of their reporting, proved to be reliable. Judith Miller got into hot water for proving to be a handy syphon for administration officials deliberately seeding false information on Saddam's arms. Most of the usually unquestioned 'reliable sources' in the newspaper world have terrible records both for accuracy and reliability in that extensive period. We still cite these as 'reliable sources' and worry the death over Counterpunch. I don't think it matters much where a comment appears, as long as the person quoted or writing has a very good track record as a serious and attentive analyst. I don't read many Counterpunch articles, but usually one a day is written by a very good inside source, or analyst with a proven track record and high academic or career standing, to warrant close reading. This is of course, and will remain, a minority view.Nishidani 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: In this case, the article appeared in the print version of Counterpunch, not the online version. Because the print version is sold by subscription, a lot of their "best" articles don't appear in the Web version at all. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the author of this piece, Debbie Nathan, has a very good reputation as a journalist and is something of an expert, having written a book on the same subject. --Ssbohio 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did some further research... Debbie Nathan is particularly reputable on the topic of this article, child sexual abuse, having written a book on the subject that's been published by a major house. The book, Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, is well-regarded by reviewers such as Philip Jenkins, Prof. Robert A. Baker, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Women's Review of Books, The American Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Nation, and the Brisbane, Australia Sunday Mail. It is considered a seminal work on the topic. It is required reading in Prof. Cecil Greek's graduate seminar in the University of South Florida's college of criminology. I believe that Nathan is a bona fide specialist in this field. Considering the evidence, how does that affect her reliability as a source? Please let me know what you think of the critical and academic opinions of Nathan and her work on this topic. --Ssbohio 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Nathan is a credible source, but not someone who is so reliable that the editorial practices of the publication don't need to be looked at as well. Yes, Nathan mitigates in favor of inclusion. Counterpunch mostly mitigates against. The compromise reached on the article (Which was Justin Berry, btw) seems to me sensible - include the information, but source it explicitly in the text to Counterpunch. In the case of more inflammatory or negative information, however, that position needs to be re-evaluated. As the policy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Phil Sandifer 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GenerationQ

A similar challenge has been made to the use of GenerationQ as a source. GenerationQ is an online magazine aimed at LGBT young adults, particularly young gay men. It covers news of particular interest to this community. In its favor, it enjoys a broad international readership. However, it is an online rather than a paper source, and some of its reporting has been used in a biographical article that's part of WikiProject LGBT Studies, but that the article's subject self-identifies as not being part of the LGBT community. The article specifically cites facts (and includes references) demonstrating that the subject of the article's business dealings are inconsistent with his public statements. Additionally, the facts stated in the article are supported by two primary sources written and posted online by the article's subject. Similar to the question of CounterPunch, an editor is challenging a reference to this source backed up by references to the two corroborating primary sources. How is the reliability of a source like this determined, and how is that applied when the article is a biography of a living person? Fundamentally, I want to know: is this a reliable source? --Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to at least the magazine's website? GRBerry 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that... GenerationQ --Ssbohio 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, parts of it clearly are not. It has a "Community" subsection of user posted content. Anything there is right out.

The organization is based in Australia. Their staff page is currently blank; this is not a good sign. Their page for prospective reporters indicates that writing positions are unpaid, and for those seeking exposure. This is also not a good sign. Frankly, I wouldn't use it for anything contentious given this data. BLP sourcing is supposed to be of the highest standards; and GenQ by itself does not appear to meet these standards.

It sounds like you don't think that the primary sources lack reliability, or at least you aren't asking that question. If the GenQ site is really only being used to support a synthesis of inconsistency, a viable solution might be to cite each source and leave the synthesis unstated. GRBerry 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America sourced for contentious factual claims

I have added tags to those statements in Battle of Jenin for which I could not replace CAMERA with a journalistic reliable source. It seems clear to me both from WP:RS and past editing experience that partisan pressure groups are not generally used as reliable sources. According to the wikipedia page for CAMERA: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel [6] and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers [7], organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. [8] Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." No editors appear to be disputing their partisan nature; according to User:Isarig "You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources." (Note that I am not arguing with use of attributed POV statements from CAMERA expressing their analyses, rather I take issue with their use as a source for wikipedia-voice statements of fact like "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.^[1]")

On a related issue - and uninvolved editors feel free to refactor out this comment if it's clearly in the wrong place - is not the removal of such maintenance tags ([9],[10]) without some approximation of consensus built on talk considered very bad practice if not outright disruptive editing? Eleland 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA's claims stated as "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.^[1]" are footnoted with the name and date of the publication where the quoted individual made the statement. Interested parties cam easily check the named reference and verify it says what is claimed. CAMERA itself denies it is partisan, and WP:RS does not disallow partisan sources - it only asks that they be used cautiously on BLPs. The claims sourced to CAMERA (as a secondary source) which you are objecting to are not 'contentious factual claims' at all - they are quotes of primary sources, with name & date of the primary source provided. Isarig 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant footnote is simply "19. ^{^ a b c d e} CAMERA". see ([[11]]) Eleland 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "CAMERA" part of that is actualy a link to a specific CAMERA article, namely this one, where all the claims are duly described with the primary source, e.g.: "April 13, Erekat, on CNN", or 'April 10, Sha'ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse)" Isarig 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by involved editor - it doesn't matter what side a source is allegedly supporting as long as it's references and statements are reliable. for the same reason, i cannot remove The Guardian articles or the BBC despite their anti-israel bias (and countless errors). there is nothing beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify the claim that the source in unreliable. on top of this many of the "needs more reliable reference" statements have similar statements expressed on other references and up to now camera notes have been fairly easily verified. we are discussing reliability in report and there is no validated reason to suspect camera as more unreliable than the major news medias they are quoting or criticizing... to the contrary even. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editor - there may be times we use CAMERA for facts (about Israel sources - not about Palestinian sources as we've done in this case). But in general we'd have to treat them as extremely dubious because of their aggression and distortion. Here's a fairly random example of the latter, quibbling about words spoken (likely repeatedly) by Israel's most famous militarist. Moshe Dayan wasn't in the business of claiming land for Israel by buying it! PalestineRemembered 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source. Isarig 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that Moshe Dayan was going round lecturing students on the acquisition of land by purchase (which in any case only amounted to quite a small proportion of the land of Israel). Dayan was a war-hero with a black patch over one eye, that's why people wanted to here him speak. He was quite open about these things, he said to Rami Tal "in the period between 64 and 67 when there were a lot of incidents on the border between Israel and Syria about 80% of these incidents were started by Israel".

And nobody reading CAMERA's claims would think they were capable of being RS (though I don't doubt many of the individual facts are true, and in some cases, one might wish to quote them). And their "refutation" in this case is based on their insistence that Dayan only said that Israel was all built on places where Arabs had lived once at this particular lecture. Pilger quotes him saying it at his retirement, so CAMERA simply have no idea what he said, they're grabbing at straws. PalestineRemembered 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA did not correct a misquote, full stop. It restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it. Dayan, properly cited, remarks:'-In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.'

The paraphrase runs:'In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.'

This is highly dubious, if not indeed, an intentionally misleading gloss. For the paraphrase drops the crucial In a considerable number of places (meaning implicitly, '- in many other places what I am saying about buying the land from Arabs where our villages now are does not apply. I.e. that land was taken without purchase). Dayan, contrary to what CAMERA writes, is admitting that in many cases dispossession did occur (He was, admirably, more objective than CAMERA and is on record as admitting many ruses were employed to grab disputed land by pure force). One could name any number of reasons why this is bad reporting (who were the Arabs? The fellahin driven off the fields they had traditionally worked? Or absentee landlords in Beirut and Amman, who sold the lands to Jewish agencies, who then dispossessed the tenants, as was often the case?)

This then is not an example of 'Accuracy', it is a matter of unilaterally spinning information to one party's advantage. Were it to live up to its name 'Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America' it would have a huge amount of its work cut out just correcting the almost systematic way most Middle Eastern Countries neighbouring on Israel are also subject to misreporting. Hence its very name belies, and indeed misrepresents its partisan focus. I commend them for defending the cause of Israel, but they shouldn't pretend that this is an undertaking for a spirit of dignified neutrality on The Middle East. It is a mediatic lobby, which cherrypicks the news like Fox, and, I suggest, most major News Sources, and has an agenda, as we can see in its cleverly misleading paraphrase above, one as strong as Counterpunch's, or any other radical paper. Were it as honest as we are rightly called on to be in here in drafting wiki articles it would replace 'Middle East' with 'Israel' which it won't do, I think to its discredit. For there is nothing intrinsically wrong about a committee devoted to defending any one country's image, and pursuing an ideal of checking and combating perceived abuses in reportage on it. Many countries practice this.Nishidani 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - the CAMERA article, which as you conced restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it is 'spinning information to one party's advantage' because it omits the qualifier ("In a considerable number of places"), but the article they were critiquing, which compeltly omitted the conetxt of Dyan talking about buying land - that text is ok, and should not be critiqued? Isarig 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A point on syntactical implications that you appear to be unaware of. You wrote: 'Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source.'

You are saying that, 'no one is claiming . .tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate.'

In fact it was claimed, by CAMERA that the text they complained about was inaccurate. That was the reason for their just emendation of the truncated text. You meant, I presume 'accurate'?

(2) It was reliable in correcting a quote, wholly unreliable in explaining that quote, wilfully misrepresenting one of the meanings in Dayan's text. In restoring the quote, they then proceeded to distort its meaning. It's not difficult to check sources. It is quite difficult, I gather, to read them correctly, and CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote, and a completely unreliable source for its meaning.Nishidani 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your analysis and opinion of the CAMERA explanation, but please realize it is your personal POV. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and we do not engage in editor-generated analysis of sources. If the above quote was used in a WP article, I'd expect it to be presented as CAMERA's opinion, and if a RS commented on their explanation along the lines you have outlined, that could be presented as well. None of this has anything to do with CAMERA's status as a reliable source, certainly when the issues at hand are direct quotes, not explanations of them, cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As you wrote - "'CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote" - that's all that this dispuet is about.

Okay we are getting seriously sidetracked here, what are we talking about the Moshe Dayan quote for exactly? I mean PR is right, and anyone who knows the full context of this quote (where he talks about provoking border wars with Lebanon in order to steal farmland, etc) can see that, but this quote is not at all at issue in the article I was talking about. Eleland 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What you were talking about is the use of quotes by CAMERA, where the direct quote is cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As Nishidani points out, CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote,. Isarig 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at this reference - I don't believe the encyclopedia should ever be treating as an "RS" an article such as "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference .... despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". I've not deleted the references, but it is essential that we source this somewhere else. PalestineRemembered 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, this noticeboard should be used to solicit opinions from editors previously unaware of the concern. I see this is not precisely true in this case. Moving to the specific item of concern, it seems self-evident that CAMERA is an advocacy website, and should be used with caution. If the only source for certain quotes is CAMERA, it is reasonable to ask for substantiation of the quotes from an alternative source. Using only quotes available through a single article in an advocacy website leaves us open to the risk of unbalanced reporting, so that should be kept in mind. In this case, CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment to User:Hornplease, please look into this part of the article - [12] - and see where my previous comment above said reference fits in. btw, thank you for giving this issue a look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that section is by and large not problematic; however, I think if a particularly outlandish claim by a Palestinian spokesman is sourced to a TV interview quoted by CAMERA, I can see why a dubious tag might apply. I certainly would wish to alert the average reader to the antecedents of the quote. Hornplease 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

continued talk with User:Hornplease - please note these bogus statements have been repeated on other references on that same subsection. i agree that we should strive for less POV sources, however, there is no indication to CAMERA beying more unreliable than the sources they cite; to the contrary even. anyways, i appreciate your input (hope other uninvolved editors will give one also). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig I would ask you kindly not to cherrypick my words. I quite explicitly said that on this one quote, CAMERA correctly gave Dayan's words. It is reliable on this one specific quote. It is not reliable, to judge from the way it handles the quote, and generally quotes to a POV purpose. I.e. 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' CAMERA is partisan, not trustworthy in that scrupulous editorial oversight which RS thinks important as a criterion was lacking in the paraphrase, and not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand' (Middle East), since it is dedicated exclusively to promoting Israel's POV Nishidani 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A general comment. In war all sides lie (Walter Lippman 1924) to swing public opinion about them, and if you want to know what is going on in specific actions, months must pass if not years. Sometimes decades. To document minutely the day or day battle for the 'hearts and minds' of distant onlookers, with the profusion of understatements and exaggerations, may be a useful exercise, but it is not going to last long. In a few years, this trivia will be, by a proper historian, summed up more or less as Wildly exaggerated reports by Palestinian spokesmen of massive casualties, running into several hundreds of civilian deaths - competed with understatements by the Israeli government, for attention in the world's media. At the same time, Israel was sufficiently worried about the havoc caused by the assault to block an independent UN team from investigating in the aftermath to ascertain exactly what had occurred at Jenin. What is know is that the casualties were one-tenth of what the most exaggerating Palestinian report said they were, and these deaths,52, were evenly divided between innocent civilian bystanders and Palestinian fighters.

The drift of the passage, with its meticulous citation of outlandish reports, is to document the unreliability of Palestinians. There may be point in devoting some space to this with regard to Jenin. Anyone who reads what Amira Hass or Gideon Levy writes regularly in Haaretz in the aftermath of some missile strike or reprisal raid by the IDF, in which they visit the area, interview the families, and give intimate details of how the families of numerous civilian casualties saw events, with the usual IDF reports filtered to newspapers on the same events, will appreciate that the relevant facts are mainly edited out in the latter. The Palestinian dead rarely have an identity, are 'suspected' of terrorism, or otherwise ignored, and the whole event is summarized as a strike with an array of statistics framed in a narrative of generic provocations by terrorists and reprisal by a righteous army dedicated to 'purity of arms'. Any slipup is an unfortunate mishap. The central fact, that the land where most of these incidents occur is foreign territory under military occupation, and that Israel is obliged under International law to evacuate its illegal settlers, is ignored (As regards these settlements, the ICJ notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” ). As is the fact that:-

'4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory..' International Court of Justice ruling 2004 para.102). I.e. Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, in Israel's view, have no right of appeal to International Covenants protecting their economic, social and cultural rights' even when Israel itself, the Occupying Power, is a signatory to these covenants.

In all these issues then Israelis have the protection of law and the IDF: the Palestinians have neither, as an occupied people. If you say this of course, you are accused of having a POV.

So, until there is a real stable political settlement, all of these articles will continue to suffer from instrumental editing: we will have chronic 'incidents', innumerable pages created where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors will battle for the minds and the hearts of those unfortunates who think Wikipedia is a reliable source for the Middle East, pages subject to incessant edits, challenges of POV, revert wars, and subtle plays to adjust the language so that, in any one section, my side gets the subliminal assent which, in a tradeoff, your side got earlier etc. It is a huge waste of effort, and quite pathetic to watch. The only people whom a bystander can trust in this area is one who shows him/herself willing to correct POV from pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis with an equally firm hand, because he/she takes on an effort to look at the record as far as it can be objectively ascertained, and not at the powerful, often militant interests behind various, mostly trivial, accounts of that record.Nishidani 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your symapthy for the Palestinian cause. But this is not USNET nor a blog, and your long psot above has zero to do with the question of CAMERA's relaibility and credibility. Kindly keep politcal POV-pushingout of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sympathy for Israel's cause. No intention of blogging. My point is that you are never going to get a decent article on any Israeli-Palestinian issue by scouting through Internet resources culling material from newspapers, since such reportage is factitious, ephemeral, and the sources are almost invariably partisan.If we stuck to printed books by scholarly publishers, and official documents by independent bodies, most of this frigging about would disappear, and wiki would have a decent set of articles. The results so far are lengthy articles full of trivia, and huge threads of squabbling over what are, mostly, relatively simple issues.

I am, on another page, suffering a revert battle by people who will not explain to me why they consider the 2004 International Court of Justice decision POV. Why? Because they don't agree with the Court personally, and have a newspaper source by a journalist-politician who questioned it before the judgement was even passed down. I don't believe they are in bad faith. I think they are so accustomed to looking for sources in newspapers to justify their take on things, that they have forgotten the primary issue, which is a purely technical one, easily ascertained, from UN documentation and ICJ decisions. Unlike them, I make no pretence of not having a POV. What I do do, is try to keep it off the page, and stay open to queries by whoever suspects in the edits I do make that my decisions are affected by personal bias, and not by considerations of fidelity to the complete and relevant historical record. This is my last comment on the matter here.Nishidani 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record. This is off-topic, but illustrates a larger problem. 8 minutes after my posting the above, Isarig reverted Palestinian territories without apparently, unless he/she is a remarkable speed reader, reading the Talk page where a lengthy series of expositions justified my edits and those of Tiamut. He/she joins User:Humus sapiens and User:Tickle me who have over the past day reverted attempts to improve the page, each twice. Neither of the latter gave anything but a vague POV warning in the revert edits: when pressed, a very brief note by each was forthcoming, the first revealing the reverter's ignorance of niceties of English usage; the second was adequately answered, with missing RS requested, amply supplied. The page before my edits was bannered with 'neutrality debated'. That is the article all three have restored, preferring the obvious POV of that earlier page to our efforts to improve it.

I suppose this passing the baton is to avoid the 3RR rule. All three are not working on the page, but simply revert insistently, while refusing discussion. POV is evidenced not only by explicit declarations, but also, far more frequently, by this kind of behaviour, which lazily employs the POV charge to suppress unwelcome edits.Nishidani 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, what you're describing is a content dispute, and the danger to articles in the encyclopedia is something that cannot be addressed at the "Reliable Sources" page. (There is some suspicion that well-funded outside influence is at play). In theory, discussions held here can have a significantly beneficial long-term impact on the encyclopedia by reducing the influence of distorted, angry material such as published by CAMERA.

One of the regular watchers of this page (who might be able to help us resolve this RS business in a consistent fashion) has reminded us that article-involved editors shouldn't really be playing a part in this discussion. However, one of the very most experienced editors present may have led everyone else astray right at the beginning of this section, for reasons that are difficult to understand. It might be best if this discussion were left to try and get at least one part of the process back on track. PalestineRemembered 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from someone else

CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. It is of course reliable for giving its own opinions, and it is sufficiently notable that its opinions on developments are often newsworthy. But when its material is republished by a RS, then it can be indirectly quoted as , eg. NYTimes , based on... That does not seem to be the question here--the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? An interesting side issue seems to be whether it can be used as a source for the statements about people whose position it agrees with. I think in general not, as no such source can be trusted to report them fairly rather than reinterpret them in a more favorable light. DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how I feel. I did make an effort to find the originals, or more reliable sources which replicated the originals, and I replaced the CAMERA cites where I could. The "verify cred" tags only went on those quotes which I couldn't find. Interestingly, there are a lot of purported direct quotes on the CAMERA report which return only one Google hit - CAMERA. Check [13] , [14], [15]. Objectively, these materials should have been removed entirely, but I gave the benefit of the doubt - apparently a mistake on my part. Eleland 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
• There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[16]
• And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[17]
• There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[18]
• In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• CAMERA is currently cited 4 times in this article, and all the tags have been removed. PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - (1) number57 is VERY involvedin ME articles. (2) "Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found.", (2.1) from as many as 50! citations from that article page, we've managed to find replacements to almost all of them. (2.2) the quotes/statments that have not been replaced are all (best i'm aware) repeated by the same people on close dates and referenced by other sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston Freeways

Houston Freeways is a comprehensive self-published book about the freeway system of Houston, Texas. I know that self-published sources are generally bad, but this seems to be a rare exception. It's well-cited (which, of course, means that I could go to those sources, but I don't have access to them), and has been listed alongside a number of non-self-published books on the FHWA's site. Is it reasonable to use this book as a factual reference? --NE2 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that he was awarded the 2004 Excellence in Journalism Award for the book by the Houston Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Can I assume that this is enough? --NE2 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study." I'd say the New York Times quoting the author (one of nine news pieces listed on the book's web site) is substantial evidence of that recognition. —David Eppstein 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about his other works, like TexasFreeway.com? --NE2 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin, Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, and William Wetherall

A single-purpose anon IP user wants to know if Wikipedia can cite as definitive FACT the following sentence from the Encyclopedia of Japan.[19]. The only question I have with this quote is the issue of weasel words like “many” popping up to implicitly endorse some kind of faulty logic, so I asked if the user knew who the author was. His reply wasn’t too helpful, [20] so I looked up the source myself.

The article is entitled “foreigners in Japan” by William Wetherall (Volume 2, 1st ed., 1983, p. 314). It doesn’t cite any sources, and the only thing that I could find that Wetherall apparently published related to the subject is a report on foreigners in Japan for a partisan think tank entitled “Minority Rights Group" (Report No. 3, new 1983 edition) That source gives Wetherall’s bio. It reads: “William Wetherall is a graduate student in Asian Studies at the University of California Berkeley. His Japanese research covered popular culture, modern literature, contemporary cinema, and minority discrimination.”

Any ideas on what to do with this source:

1. Cite it completely as fact? 2. Cite it as Wetherall’s opinion….something like “Wetherall writes….” 3. Cite it in part with ellipses that remove words like “many”? 4. Don’t use the source at all? 5. Keep looking for another source that says “some” instead of “many”?

Experienced editors haven't expressed an opinion on the gaijin talk page yet, and I suspect some of the single-purpose users are getting restless. Comments from experienced editors here would be most helpful. In good faith, J Readings 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William Wetherall is a perfectly respectable source, as is the Kodansha Encyclopedia, since it is one of several standard sources for articles on Japan, even if like many respectable sources it can often get things wrong, usually by not fully covering nuances. The word gaijin (外人) originally meant 'someone outside of the group to which the user belonged', hence someone estranged from the primary group. In the Heike monogatari it is used of people who should be looked on as enemies. In modern usage it is employed quite innocuously in most cases, and it not thought derogatory, but it can often take on negative connotations according to context, especially since it implies frequently, in a Japan that is increasingly open to foreigners, that foreigners cannot as gaijin, ever belong to the national group. When the Aids epidemic began, 'gaijin' was punned on to create the neologism' (I modify for clarity to outsiders) 'Aidsjin', implying Aids was something 'foreigners had'. This is too brief a reply, but for the moment Nishidani 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've carefully studied the Heike Monogatari and what scholars think on the subject (they all don't agree that it means "enemy"[21]), but let that pass. What's at issue here is the word "most" and I certainly agree that we're talking about its modern post-war usage here among foreigners. What do experienced editors recommend: going with 1,2,3,4, or 5? J Readings 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't have time, it was lunch, to check through your links. Impressive research (original by the way, but I have no objections). Tthat original research however in no way affects what I said above, since it is overwhelmingly focused on ancient philological questions, which by their nature cannot throw light on the issue you asked an opinion on.

On 'most' you strike me as making a storm in a teacup, or rather suffering from needless scruples over a point of minute valency. If that point is sustained as policy, then no poll results could be cited on Wikipedia because they make illations about most people on the basic of a statistical sample. You yourself on the linked page use the word 'many' or 'most' without proving that the generalisation implied covers the whole field of dictionaries or scholars. It refers to the extensive sources you have checked, which by no means cover the whole field.

I was thrown off by your mentioning that you checked out who this W Wetherall was. All Japanologists of my day knew and know who he is, and I surmised, not reading your research, that you were someone who had to check up the background of a scholar everyone in my day in the field was familiar with.

You write:'The point all along here, Bendono, is whether these old usages of gaijin and their examples, regardless of its reading—tohito, kotohito/kotobito, etc.—are useful for understanding whether the gaijin of today’s vernacular is by definition or etymology a term of disparagement—an epithet. My argument all along is that they are not, because the current-day term referring to foreigners and the old term referring to the other, another person, other persons, those outside one’s ingroup, strangers, potential enemies enemies (by virtue of not being members of the ingroup)'

Of course etymology is no guide to meaning, so all that research is useless for understanding the contemporary sense of 'gaijin', but it certainly warrants a full scale academic elaboration. In IE languages, the word guest/host and hostile are all interrelated. That doesn't mean there is an intrinsic tinge of hostility in host-guest

relationships, even though, on a psychological plain, tensions exist.

Your second point puts the finger on a problem you seem unaware of. The distinction between the modern concept of 'foreigner' and 'the old term' for 'other', those outside one's ingroup' etc. is a non-distinction, because the former term is simply an extention of the latter set of terms. Japanese social structure strongly demarcates 自/他 boundaries, within Japan and between Japanese and non-Japanese. The problem you pose is sociolinguistic, not etymological. All ingroup/outgroup distinctions carry, by that very distinction, a contrast between people you trust, and those you trust less, between social situations you are comfortable in, and social situations, constituted by outsiders, in which you are not too comfortable in. 'Gaijin' thus tended naturally to bear a connotation of an outsider in whose presence one's customary ease of interaction is destabilized, in early Japan as today. Over the decades this has decreased, but people who lived in Japan from 1945 to 1985 at least, know from innumerable personal experiences that their being foreigners often created embarrassment, confusion, unease and sometimes shock, in everyday transactions (shocked storekeepers going blank when you asked, in Japanese, for a packet of cigarettes, endless occasions of being blocked at the door of restaurants and bars because 'No gaijin' cries of alarm when the club's clientale or owner set sight on you). Wetherall is just stating this obvious fact, at least to my generation of scholars. I fail to see why you find it problematic because it says 'many'. That was empirically true at least for the period I specified.

One might add that the word 'gaijin' is certainly less pejorative in Japanese usage, referring to as it does to obvious ethnic outsiders, than the words 'burakumin/yottsu/eta', which refers to a Japanese pariah group.

You write:-'WP guidelines states that we should not give undue weight to extreme minority views on any given topic. Considering that most dictionaries and Japanese academics do not consider the word 外人 in the prewar period to be (1) pejorative, etc'

We have to take your word for it. Note you say 'most' but have problems with weasel words like 'many'. You haven't by any means justified 'most'. Kojien is not by any stretch of the imagination an 'extreme minority view', even if as you note, many other authoritative dictionaries disagree ( nor is Wetherall, for that matter.) Regards and best wishes for your research and the page, which looks like it is in eccelent hands Nishidani 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani: Thank you for the thought-provoking reply and kind words. My explanation was not very clear, but a full review of the back history will show that the gaijin article and its talk page to be an unstable mess, with a focus on elaborately unsourced POV explanations and unreliable internet material to debate whether the word CURRENTLY is a derogatory "racial slur" (my opinion, based on the sources, is that there's no reputable third-party source supporting that sweeping characterization, including Wetherall, but that's something to discuss on the talk page).

In any case, a few editors are now trying to resolve this problem by following the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and grounding the main article with reliable in-line citations.

You're probably right that this concern about Wetherall's background and word choice ("many") might be unnecessary, but the troubling “Everybody knows….” rationale to insert weasel words, unsourced assertions, and further contentious edits to the main page hopefully explains a little bit better my query here. Best regards, J Readings 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Per WP:N a subject is notable if it has recieved non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. I was looking at the article on Claus Elming, a Danish football player and TV personality who has recieved significant non-trivial coverage in the Danish media. Ignoring for a moment that the reliable sources in this context are not used solely to satisfy WP:V what is the general concensus on the use of foreign language sources as reliable sources, especially when such sources are in a language only understood by a small minority of editors? Is there a generally agreed upon concensus on a threshold for how minor a language may be before such sources are disregarded? MartinDK 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Such sources are never "disregarded"... it is simply that equally reliable sources in English are given preference. A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter what language it is written in. Blueboar 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Lutherans

Almost none of the entries on this list have any citation to show that they have professed to being a Lutheran. The 3 sources listed:

• Famous Lutherans List at website of Faith Lutheran Church, Groton, CT.
• Famous Lutherans at NNDB.
• Famous living Lutherans from the ELCA site.

do not seem at all reliable. Any thoughts on what to do here? Kevin 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Go slow... The fact that someone is identified as a Lutheran is not all that harmful, but we do have policies about verification that we want to uphold. Place a {{fact}} tag on those entries that are not cited. Raise the issue on the talk page (including your concern about the reliability of the three sources that are used). Then wait... give people time to respond and find proper sources. If you get no reply by the end of (say) a month, then raise the issue again with warning that you might start deleting uncited material. In the mean time... see if you can find better sources yourself. The goal should be to try to keep the list, but to improve it with solid references. Finally, after due time you can delete those entries that are still uncited. Blueboar 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And I guess a further question I should have asked before, what about the reliability of the sources listed? I know NNDB has been discussed before as non-reliable, and the ELCA site states that they are not sure of the accuracy. Kevin 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlawyered

• Overlawyered (redirect page to Walter Olson)
• Overlawyered.com

Will Beback is systematically eliminating links to Overlawyered, added by multiple editors, without discussion on talk pages, and against consensus. Though it is in the form of a blog, it qualifies as a WP:RS: it features writing by multiple writers (including Stuart Taylor and Michael Fumento) and is edited by the leading expert in the field, Walter Olson; it is regularly cited by books,[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] ^{{and many others}} law reviews, newspaper articles, and magazines (including a number that just plagiarize us without citing). Even if it is considered a self-published source, it qualifies as a source under WP:SPS. (COI disclosure: I occasionally write for Overlawyered. I added an Overlawyered link to one page after consulting with other editors to the page.) I don't challenge all of the removals, but it seems improper to remove cites to the site when it is cited as an example of an opinion of leading legal reformers. THF 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP directly bars the use of blogs for biographies, except those written by the subject. The author of the postings in question is not Stuart Taylor, Michael Fumento, or Walter Olson. It is someone called Ted Frank, who is not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. If he is being advanced as an expert in his field then we need to have evidence of that. One editor who restored a few links asserted that a poor source is better than none. This directly contradicts our philosphy on reliable sources. If we can't find reliable sources for an assertion then it's better to leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank RS evidence: The American^[27]; Business Week^[28]; Wall Street Journal^[29]; Forbes^[30]; Washington Post^[31]. Let me know if you need more. The Frank article was CSD'd as an attack page about a year after someone created it after it was vandalized to remove all useful information. THF 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The exception to RS allows for citing an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Have any of Ted Frank's opinions on the case been published in reliable sources? I don't see that author being attributed in the previous versions of the McDonalds citations, perhaps we say, "According to Ted Frank of the AEI..." that would clarify the context of the blog postings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank is cited on legal issues. When we cite to William Connolley's blog (which is cited to multiple times on Wikipedia), we don't ask if he's been cited on the specific blog topic, but whether he's generally reliable on environmental issues. THF 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to having Frank's opinions labelled as his own? Where the citations go to ostensibly objective information that wouldn't be necessary, but when we're talking about viewpoints I think it'd be informative to know the speaker. The issue is contentious, and Frank is unabashedly partisan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COOL and some other guidelines, I'm withdrawing from the conversation, and ask that you hash this out with CHL and other editors. THF 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better to leave unreliable assertions out. If you have a problem with the claims, remove the claims (and their sources). Removing the source but keeping the claim (as you've done) is just bizzare. A sourced claim is better than an unsourced claim. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two distinct issues: one whether Overlawyered is a reliable source in the general case. The answer to that appears to be no, especially given the lack of apparent editorial oversight. The next question is whether we can use Overlawyered as a link of convenience for some documents that are hosted there. The answer to that seems to be a clear yes. The final question is even when overlawyered is not necessarily reliable is its material notable(that is, can we on BLP say something like "According to _ at Overlawyered _" the answer to that seems to be yes given that the material is frequently cited by mainstream sources. JoshuaZ 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two points. For the third point I'd say the current exemption to using blogs applies to authors, not entire blogs. If the author has been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the topic in question then it's OK to use on that topic with caution, though it's still preferable to use inherently reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your analysis is on-target. Straight BLP claims are not appropriate, but as a source of opinion it is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, per Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reason_for_reverting_ban_on_self-published_external_links, that this discussion implies that Overlawyered (when posts are written by reliable-source bloggers) can be used as an external link in a biography article. I request reversion of Beback's deletions to EL. THF 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which propsoed links are to blog postings by "recognized authorities"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

90% of Overlawyered posts (and 100% of the ones before June 2003, when it was solely written by Olson) are by Olson or Frank. I don't have time to go through everything you deleted, and I don't know how many people added how many links that you removed. If I revert you, I'll be accused of a conflict of interest. So I'm politely asking you to self-revert edits you made based on a mistaken view of policy, and continued to make even as we were still discussing the issue and you knew the edits were contested. I know you removed the link (along with Olson's PointofLaw site) as an EL from tort reform, for example, where there weren't even BLP issues. THF 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe that the authors must be recognized authorities in the topic of the article, so unless Olson and Frank are known as experts on Ed Fagan, Ralph Nader, etc, we should use blog postings as external links. In what topics do you contend Olson and Frank are recognized authorities? Tort reform, of course. Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Studios of Key West

All of the sources for this page are self-references or links to partners. Are this, this and this reliable enough to add to the article? Corvus cornix 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fla-keys one is a generic travel web site of the type that regularly gets removed as spam from tourist-destination related articles (one problem with this sort of source being that it's difficult to tell whether sites are listed as part of some sort of independent editorial process or whether they pay for their listing). The other two may be from more reliable publishers but give fairly trivial mentions as part of longer articles. I did find a news article from the Miami Herald, "A new lease for the arts in Key West", Jan. 23, 2007, that looks sufficiently reliable and nontrivial, altough it's not available online for free I think. —David Eppstein 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone lend a hand with reference formatting?

As you all seem to work with references regularly, so I felt this would be an appropriate place to ask for someone to help me.

I've been adding references, but many are untidy. See DiGard_Motorsports#References to see what I'm talking about. Anyone willing to lend a hand? I especially am unsure what to do with things I found off of Google Books.

Also, does References go above or below External Links?

I'm primarily looking to see if anyone would be willing to help work on the ref coding. I can fairly defend the references used if anyone takes issue with the refs.

(crossposted at [32])

Guroadrunner 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the Google books one using {{citation}}. Hope that helps as an example. I see that someone else already used that template for another reference of a different type. —David Eppstein 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in the United Arab Emirates

Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place but in this article the World Sex Guide is used as a source... I'm not sure this is the right kind of source for this kind of article... Cperroquin 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Abusive Hosts Blocking List

Is The Abusive Hosts Blocking List a reliable source? Does citing it violate WP:BLP?

Water fluoridation

Are the sources listed in question two here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC reliable? · jersyko talk 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal Information

Can I get a clarification on whether internal information, like manuals, memos, etc pertaining to an organization, that is distributed only for use by members within the organization is considered "published" and hence reliable sources? I scoured through a few pages of reliability and its archives, and i didn't find anything specifically addressing that point. The Jackal God 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For an article about the organization (or its subsidiaries), such items would either be self published sources (see WP:SELFPUB for guidance on handling them) or, more likely, non-published private correspondence. Ask the question - can someone go find a copy of this source and verify that it says what the editor here said that it said? If they can, use WP:SPS guidance. If they can't, it is probably private correspondence. GRBerry 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic personal pages in Scientology articles

These amateur anti-Scientology personal homepages keep recurring as references on Scientology-related articles. Some of them make some rather threatening-sounding statements that I find every bit as ominous as the "Religious Freedom Watch" lone-nut hate site (whose article was recently deleted). It seems clear to me that these kind of religious-partisan rant sites are no better than personal blogs, of no use to us as sources, nor trustworthy for courtesy links:

• Operation Clambake - One man (Andreas Heidal-Lund)'s personal site, as his FAQ clearly states. The site also, unprofessionally, urges people to spy on their local Church of Scientology - look at this. And don't forget this. Clambake's crudely written, misspelling-laden pages are used as sources on many articles, some hotly-POV-debated, like Space opera in Scientology scripture.

• Holysmoke.org - This amateurish site compiled by one man ("Shy David") consists mostly of unverifiable material like personal emails (like this page currently used as a reference on the Gold Base article!) and Usenet posts.

• Arnie Lerma's homepage - read his FAQ here in which everything is "me", "my website", his life story, etc. This is one guy's personal rant page, plain and simple. Pops up as references in articles such as Universal Life and Office of Special Affairs, and I've recently removed it from several other articles.

• Dave Touretzky's Page - Pretty much self-explanatory as a personal page, yet some editors often attempt to cite it as a reference. See Talk:Dianazene for more discussion.

• Why Are They Dead, Scientology? - More of the same. Primitive poorly-written rants and potential copyright violations. Improperly used as a source reference on many hotly-POV-debated articles like Lisa McPherson, Kenja Communication, Cults and governments, etc.

• Gerry Armstrong's page - Personal opinion sites don't get much more personal and opinionated than this. And yet it's cited as a reliable source on Office of Special Affairs and many more.

• Da Sloth's Home Page - ditto. Used in many articles, such as Fair Game (Scientology).

Furthermore, these sites are also seeded in a very spammy fashion across the External Links sections of almost the entirety of the Scientology articles.

The Anti-Scn editors will likely cry that I'm seeking to silence all criticism of Scientology. Far from it - I want lots and lots of criticism, but criticism with airtight sources, not these homepages of people ranting about their holy mission to "expose the global scam of Scientology". If these criticisms are so encyclopedic, we should be able to get all the dirt we need from reliable sources, not some angry conspiracy-theory personal webpage made by persons with evident grudges. User:AndroidCat has done a great job recently supplanting CoS articles with solid newspaper articles as sources, so let's follow his example and lose these childish "Scientology sucks" pages. wikipediatrix 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two bits to this. I recently made these edits [33][34] to the David Miscavige article. I found that Lerma's site had altered the title of the article to sound much more sinister than it actually was. Right there, that seems to disqualify it as a reliable source. As someone else pointed out to me the source is the source, and not a website who is hosting the article to make a point. I would personally like to see less criticism in the Scn-related articles, but I know that's not going to happen. So, if there has to be criticism, then let it be well sourced from reliable sources, as well as make sure the article says what the source says (if you notice my edit, once I changed it to reflect what the article actually said, changed the tone of what was being said quite a bit).HubcapD 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Although the authors of these self-published web sites are occasionally quoted by the media and occasionally termed "expert" in that context, there is a difference between using their statements as reported by the press (i.e. by reliable sources) and considering their personal websites themselves as reliable sources. The authors of these "Scientology Sucks" web sites are, IMO, extremists, if, by "extremist", we simply mean someone that is as far from center or from NPOV as is possible. When an extremist makes a statement to the press we have a number of factors at work. 1) The extremist will tone down his rhetoric and limit himself to provable facts or sustainable opinions; 2) the reliable source should fact-check and only print those portions of the remarks that check out; and 3) the reliable source will also publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes a reliable source "reliable".
  
  For an example, look at this San Francisco Chronicle article, Scientology link to public schools, in which anti-Scientology "extremist" David Touretzky is referenced not an "expert" but as simply what he is, a computer science research professor that has a web site; a web site that, according to the SF Chronical, "includes some controversial material." This is my opinion but I see that "controversial" as a codeword for "biased", "not reliable", even "dubious". The SF Chronicle did not use Touretzky's attack site as a source. They were able to write quite a critical article without using these dubious personal sites as "sources". That is responsible publishing and the standard that we must maintain here.
  
  Self-published personal Scientology attack sites are under no constraints to 1) limit the rhetoric to provable fact or sustainable opinions; 2) do any fact-checking at all; or 3) publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes such sites not reliable. They are self-published. They are polemic. They are biased. They are unreliable. We do not need them. --Justanother 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources

Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to reliable sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well). Thank you. --NYScholar 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad

Is TV Squad reliable? It's called a weblog, but it seems to be run more like an online newspaper. The TV Squad page says

"Eventually a core group of bloggers for the site was realized, with several other WIN bloggers contributing on an irregular basis. TV Squad currently has approximately 17 regularly contributing bloggers. As with most other WIN blogs, TV Squad has editorial lead bloggers. These lead bloggers are responsible for activating posts, managing bloggers, assigning features and working with outside media contacts."

Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No because a) they are self-published and the only self-published sources that qualify are from leading experts and b) we have no way of knowing that they check their facts. WP:V and WP:RS are actually quite clear on this - the disputes occur when people try to argue their way around the rules (or even worse claim that there aren't any actual rules to begin with). MartinDK 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They have an editor, and the "bloggers" are paid. Also, they do not allow any interaction between marketers and bloggers. Basically it's a newpaper, except it's online, and the reporters are called bloggers. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not buying it. The site specifically states that anything written is the opinion of the individual blogger and not the site it self. So I ask again: how do we know that they check their facts? MartinDK 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Google news recognizes them as a news source. - Peregrine Fisher 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They state that they don't control the opinions of their writers. I don't think newspapers are supposed to tell their reviewers what to say either. Do newspapers say a review is the opinion of the newspaper, or of the writer? I think it's the writer. As far as checking their facts, they have a supervising editor and and assistant editor. How do we know newspapers check their facts? It seems like we rely on the fact that they have an editorial staff. I don't frequent this page much, so maybe we have some good way of evaluating editorial staffs. That would be cool. Otherwise it seems like a paid editorial staff should be what we're looking for. TV Squad's parent company was started by Mark Cuban, and they're owned by AOL now, so it's serious business, not some fly by night website. - Peregrine Fisher 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go. A reliable source talking about it [35]. That should help us decide. - Peregrine Fisher 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page

This debate has been going on for over 2 years now and it has re-surfaced again. The debate is whether this article should be included in the Bose article or not. If you check the talk page not only do I believe that this article does not qualify because it is blatantly POV but it fails the tests of verifiability and being a reliable source (detailed listings of this are on the talk page). But this can be summed up by this comment:

the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link [..] Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad. Rivertorch 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you help lay this issue to rest? -- UKPhoenix79 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is being used to support the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells deficient equipment. This occurs in a section which also contains the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells high-end equipment. In order to accurately portray the dispute, we must represent both viewpoints. We have worked hard to ensure that the section issues no judgment on the quality of the equipment itself, but merely provides an exposition of the dispute.

Our last discussion uncovered numerous articles in traditional newspapers that referred to the article in question as an encapsulation of the viewpoint it represents; it has become something of a classic and makes use of laboratory-measured frequency response data from Sound and Vision, a reputable audio review publication.

To use this source to support an assertion over the equipment itself would be a grave mistake, but there is no one advocating that. We merely wish to represent all significant viewpoints, and this article is a touchstone for one of those viewpoints. —ptk✰fgs 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also support keeping this link in the article. While it's a personal site, the individual provides detailed rationale for his or her opinions. I would argue this intellexual.net review has more relevance and credibility than the non-specific assertion of "high-end" in Forbes Magazine (a magazine that depends on advertisers like Bose for its survival). Frankly, these days Bose products are not subjected to stringent critical review by vertical publications dedicated to audio and video. Bose doesn't compete in that market anymore. As an encyclopedia, we can let the reader draw their own conclusions about which sources they choose to embrace. Furthermore the quoted observation that the intellexual.net review deals with a discontinued product does not really matter. The article has many references other past events and products - why single this one out? Mattnad 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A self-published web site does not qualify as a reliable source, in my opinion. It makes it worse that the review has no author who is willing to take responsibility for it. Elsewhere on the web some people attribute these views to Richard Wang, who is the owner of the intellexual.net web site according to whois. The current Bose Corporation article includes plenty of criticism, and readers have their pick of many reliable sources for criticism, including the Wall Street Journal. The commenter who argued we have to 'represent both viewpoints' can only mean that we should reflect the diversity of opinions found in reliable sources. That doesn't give carte blanche for self-published sites. EdJohnston 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have NEVER said that we shouldn't cite a credible source, actually I REALLY want to find one. But I have not been able to find any. This website CLAIMS to use Sound and Visions audio equipment for the testings but I could claim the same and say whatever I wanted to. I also agree that the "high-end" sources are problematic and even in the talk history said that this just doesn't make sense. But from what the discussions came down was that Bose is "high-end" consumer grade audio equipment which seamed to made sense to everyone involved.

Now I put this in the talk page but I thought that I'd post it here to help with the discussion.

If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability:

• third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
• If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page.

Nor does it pass reliability:

• Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
• Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
• In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
• Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

I don't think that I really need to list this one point by point but check out the last one. Yes this is extremely valid with this persons notable anti-bose and blatant POV throughout the web page.

No other reliable site can be found with these claims only forums and most link back to this article. Hence all the debating for over 2 years on this issue is focused on the reliability, verifiability, and POV of this particular website. according to the Official Guidelines of Wikipedia this website fails every test...

This is an encyclopedia and I just don't see how it can be used here... -- UKPhoenix79 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric, and anyone else who has not edited the Bose article, in your opinion should the many quotes in there from reliable sources /outside their areas of expertise/ be regarded as aceptable sources? In particular Bose's PR would appear to claim that they make 'high end audio' gear (whatever that means), and this is often quoted in reviews of Bose gear by non-audio mags. It seems to me that quoting Pop Sci, Forbes, or a PC magazine, on that subject is like quoting Sound & Vision on Bose's finacial standing - just quote picking.

As to the site in question, raised by our voluble friend, we are attempting to link to an objective test, a graph of frequency response. This is the only objective measurement of a Bose system we've found so far. Greglocock 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you checked the archived talk page I have said that I thought all the "High-end" references were dubious so please realize that I agree with that statement. The only reason I have not removed them myself was the case for them to stay was it was from well respected sites like Forbes Magazine, Edmunds Inside line, Popular Science, PC Magazine and C|Net. Now it is VERY noticeable that NONE are Audio magazines but regular Consumer magazines. So it was decided to keep because it was stated as being High-End consumer Audio products. Even though I think this makes sense it is still... well... odd. Though if you ask regular people on the streets if Bose is High-End audio I'd say 9 out of 10 times you will hear a resounding yes.

Going to the second point Anybody can make a graph of anything out there and claim that they are using this or that to test on this or that product. It is actually very easy to mess with numbers & tests to make them come out whatever way you want. When it comes down to it this is a personal website stating questionable results in a anything but an objective manor (yes I do mean that in both senses). The fact that this is the only website on the net that claims such tings should tell you something also, and its not that Bose will sue them, because I'm sure that after +5 years of this site being on the net the would have done that by now if they wanted to.

I just don't see how this site will ever pass verifiability or ever be considered a reliable source. -- UKPhoenix79 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are my points logical? Any other comments? -- UKPhoenix79 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Summing up. UKPhoenix79 and EdJohnston oppose the link to intellexual.net. Mattnad, ptkfgs and Greglocock are in favor of keeping it. There was also some discussion of high-end versus low-end that I may not have fully understood. This thread might have got more participation if previous comments weren't quite so verbose. (It's better to link to policy than quote it verbatim in mass quantities). Greglocock addressed Eric but I don't know who Eric is, or what his position was. I seem to be the only person who hasn't edited the Bose article to enter a comment here at RS/N.

I don't actually see how the other editors' thinking can fit with WP:RS, which provides that self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. That implies that however much we might want to have intellexual.net's results, we arent allowed to use them. But we don't have to continue this discussion if there isn't a demand for it. EdJohnston 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I meant you, not "Eric". Greglocock 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mass word for word extractions of Wikipedias policies. I have found that after 2 years debating this and other topics that people don't always read the links posted stating policies. So I generally bring them into the discussion by posting them as stated. -- UKPhoenix79 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, but it's more a symptom than the problem. Its inclusion will no longer be an issue when the article achieves a more neutral tone. I mean, I like my ancient 301s, but I don't think they are contributing to world peace. Flowanda | Talk 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dkosopedia

Dkosopedia is in about two dozen articles where it should not be.

The site flunks WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" and "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." THF 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is so subjective as to be meaningless. Given that it's linked on every page of DailyKos suggests it has a lot of editors. As for providing information beyond what a FA would have, I looked at a few, and they might fit the bill, with staff listings and phone numbers, etc. FA status doesn't seem to guarantee uniform comprehensiveness. ←Ben^B4 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This wiki has no NPOV policy, or rather, has a POV policy that says The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take. I would consider it a partisan site, so I would be cautious about what articles it was an EL in, especially in BLP articles. - Dean Wormer 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An FDA document, obtained from FBI files: Does its use violate "reliable source" and "verifiability" policies?

This is a dispute I wish could be resolved one way or another soon. It might be my misunderstanding, but we need external input with convincing arguments. The case is currently an open RfC, but I wish this was settled soon. It's about a Food and Drug Administration document, found in the FBI files, now available from this FBI web page (it can be ordered, or consulted at the FBI headquarters). Also available for a few dollars at the paperlessarchives.com. That FDA document contains a note that a specific product can be used for iron-deficiency. There is no mention that it can be used for anything else. The FDA statement from that letter was used in an article as follow: "The tablets had in fact only been approved as a supplement to counteract iron-deficiency anemia.". If you want to comment on this issue, I rather you do it at the RfC of the talk page of the article in which the dispute is ongoing, this will save me to have to notify all the person involved to have their say here. Thank you. Raymond Hill 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please look at the referenced RfC for comments by both involved and uninvolved editors. Short story short, FOIA is NOT published. It is AVAILABLE. Not published. In the specific instance, the desired edit was not "sourced material". It was WP:OR based on an unpublished primary source (granting that the letter is legit). Big difference. But more important, the cited source of the letter (xenu.com) is not RS so we cannot use the letter. RS is published material, not FOIA material, or interviews you go and do, or pictures that you take, etc. I quote WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Emphasis as original. Or as WP:V puts it, I quote: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That specific letter has not been published in a reliable source. Nor has reference to that specific letter been made in a reliable published source. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that letter does not exist. Personally, I could care less and the letter adds little to what we already have from reliable sources. My concern is OR and poor sourcing, that is worth addressing here. --Justanother 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Raymond Hill, but I don't want to weigh in on the actual dispute, so I won't be posting there. I will point out why the FOIA source seems valid to me. They are primary sources, and here is what some policies and guidelines say about them:

WP:OR says: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source...Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.... and most importantly Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.

WP:RS: The FBI is a RS, is someone saying they aren't?

WP:V: The FBI is a Verifiable source too since copies can be ordered from them. (There is almost no difference between asking someone to order docs from a gov't office and trying to get a book ordered that a local library doesn't have.)

Anynobody 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AN, you make my case for me. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. The primary source is an FDA letter. Supposedly, that letter is in the FBI's file on Hubbard and one can obtain it by ordering it from the government. But it is not PUBLISHED. Not by the FDA, not by the FBI, not by anyone. I can order a pastrami sandwich from my local deli but that doesn't make the pastrami sandwich "published". You order PUBLISHED books from your local library - you order UNPUBLISHED material by FOIA. Big difference. --Justanother 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Justanother maybe the problem is a difference in definition of what it means to "publish" something.

Publish

To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

Ordering FOIA information is public distribution. Because the same info is available to anyone who wants it, it can be verified. The definition you seem to be insisting on is info from private publishers only, which seems unnecessarily limited since a reference like this currently used in the article about the Virginia class submarine would be invalid by your argument. After all the gov't didn't publish this like a regular book. Anynobody 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com

For example, [36], this is cited extensively in Rogerian argument. I noticed this site yesterday when an anon added links to several pages. We have 300+ links from articles. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as any other web hosting site: the content should be considered self-published, and used as a source only if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, I think. A relevant quote: "Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic for distribution." —David Eppstein 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've stated on Tom Harrison's talk page, I feel that this site differs from other web hosting sites...in that it has served to be truthful as many times that I have looked over it, meaning that I have not personally seen any inaccuracies with it...yet, and so there must be some sort of condition that they have in making sure who types there is typing the real deal. I feel that Wikipedia would be losing a great source of references in discouraging (or eliminating, for that matter) the use of this site as an independent reliable source. I really have not seen any objection on Wikipedia to the use of this site as an independent reliable source until now. Flyer22 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd treat it the same as links to another wiki. They're self-published, so I would not use it as the sole citation for a fact in an article. I'd avoid using it in BLP's. On the other hand, if the link is in an "External Links" section and the AC article simply happens to be a good, useful article, I'd keep it. I'm against removing links to AC simply on principle. Squidfryerchef 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, we aren't supposed to even use other Wikipedia articles as a source. We may refer readers to other articles of related content for related info, but since an article can change at any moment they are not appropriate for an actual reference. This site has the same problem, as David Eppstein pointed out:(emphasis mine) Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic... Essentially it's describing Wikipedia. Anynobody 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are not supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as a source on Wikipedia, of course, but I don't see associatedcontent.com as truly the same as Wikipedia. For one thing, there is no worry of vandalism to their articles or other editors inaccurately adding things to their already published articles. And as David Eppstein also pointed out, associatedcontent.com can be used as a source if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, except David Eppstein stated only. For me, I feel that it can go beyond that. What also separates it from Wikipedia is even if a Wikipedian has expertise in a certain field, that still does not stop Wikipedians from not being able to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Associated Content has actually been used a source in some good articles on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen of it so far, I cannot change my mind on the subject of its use. I still feel that it should and can be used as a reliable source quite often here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't given any reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT from treating it any differently than any other self-published source. —David Eppstein 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given other reasons besides WP:ILIKEIT. I don't even frequent there often, not out of personal interest, I mean, though I often and only see their articles accurately written (so far, that is). Frankly, I don't have a lot more to state on this subject. I feel that it's a waste to disregard that site, and I'm not up for stating the same thing over and over again on this matter, in different variations. Flyer22 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com and USsearch?

Resolved

Recently an editor has added information to an article (Jaclyn Reding) that I'd previously deleted due to the fact that I couldn't find any reliable sources. The information in question being her supposed maiden name. When asking him where he'd gotten the sources and if he could put them in the article he was slightly rude and claimed that he used Ancestry.com to find her parents through a deceased brother and ussearch.com to connect her to her husband. I am wondering what are the reliabilities of these sources? The author is vague on her own website not stating where she was born, what her husband's name is, or if she has any family at all. I hate to get into a conflict with an editor in the first place, but I'm concerned that this borders on original research. I don't want to remove the information without merit because that could escalate this situation into an edit war, which I'd like to avoid so if anybody could shed some light on these two places I'd appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. USSearch cannot be used either, as it would violate WP:NOR. If that information is not available in a secondary published source, we should not put it in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All right that makes sense. Thanks a lot! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential religious affiliations

Repeated insertion of the claim that George Washington was a Deist... without any source or reference to back the claim up. Also repeated deletion of Thomas Jefferson from the list of Episcopalians even though there is a source for this. Other material boarders on WP:SYNT and OR. This article needs serious help from neutral editors. Blueboar 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Institution website as reliable resources?

Are institutions websites (Colleges, Universities, etc.) reliable sources to use for referencing articles. Like for example the Technological Institute of Piraeus? Link to the site:[37] and link to the information: [38] Can they be used in a wikipedia article as a reference or are they inadequate? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To give you a clear answer we would need more information. It depends on what why the websites are being cited ... They are certainly reliable for information regarding the college, university or organization - its courses, facutly, official policies, and stances on issues, etc. They might or might not be reliable as cites for other kinds of information, depending the specifics. Blueboar 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One of these links is for a thesis. If the thesis was published, it can be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites archaeological evidence

Can someone please comment on the Archaeology section in the Ebionites article and the source document, Buried Angels, that supports that section. The source document claims to report on archaeological research published in an Italian journal in the chapter on Archaeology. I have concerns that Jacob Rabinowitz is more of an armchair commentator than a biblical scholar, since the "book" is self-published on the Web. I would like to get the broader perspective of editors that have not been working on the article.

1. Is Jacob Rabinowitz for real as a scholar or is he simply recycling the research of scholars?

2. Is the source sufficiently well researched that it supports what is claimed in the article?

3. Even if Rabinowitz is not a real scholar, is the reporting of research that is otherwise only available in Italian a valuable resource for the article?

4. There is no other published archaeological evidence claiming to support the existence of the Ebionites. Is this "fringe research"? Is Rabinowitz making "fringe claims" based on the research of others?

Thanks for looking into this. Ovadyah 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanity press, not reliable. ←Ben^B4 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a vanity press (sells teeshirts more than books)... Possibly reliable if directly attributed to Mr. Rabinowitz... but that depends on whether he is considered an expert on the subject or not. Blueboar 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the questions we need to resolve. Is he an expert or not. Ovadyah 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabinowitz is the owner of Invisible Books online publishing company, so this work is self-published. Ovadyah 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been able to determine that Rabinowitz has a Ph.D. from Brown University and is listed as an independent scholar. Here is a list of his prior publications: publications

Jacob Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz, Jacob) Catullus's Complete Poetic Works by Jacob Rabinowitz and Gaius Valerius Catullus Softcover, ISBN 0882142208 (0-88214-220-8) The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, Continuum Intl Pub Group, ISBN 0882141171 (0-88214-117-1) Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions by Jacob Rabinowitz Hardcover, Bloch Pub Co, ISBN 0819701734 (0-8197-0173-4) Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, A K Pr Distribution, ISBN 157027035X (1-57027-035-X) The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Early Kingdom Period by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, ISBN 1570270155 (1-57027-015-5)

He is described in several websites as a practicing neo-pagan. One website has examples of his original poetry:

Here are some poems by Jacob Rabinowitz, another Neo-Canaanite. I thought they were so powerful that i asked his permission to have them here.

Jake is the author of several interesting books including: The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology, The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Kingdom Period, and his great book on Hecate, The Rotting Goddess: the Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity The last two are published by Autonomedia.

Canaanite Poems by Jacob Rabinowitz

Does anyone have more opinions on his scholarship and the online book Buried Angels? Ovadyah 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Domenic 'Mick' Gatto

In your biography on Mick Gatto, it says he died on 17th August, 2007.

This is absolutely incorrect. I know for a fact he is still alive today. In fact, an associate of mine is having lunch with him today.

So can the information on him be fixed please.

This wasn`t the right spot to report this, but it seems you are quite correct that erroneous info was added to the Mick Gatto article. I have removed it.--Slp1 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative newspapers

I've used these as sources a lot. My guess is that Wikipedia doesn't actually consider them reliable sources, though. Correct?--P4k 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're writing about music, so that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published. The good alternatives are going to meet the RS standards -- independent editorial oversight, good history of fact checking, knowledgeable writers, etc. Another good sign to me would be being part of an association that requires certain editorial standards for membership. I looked up the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and here's a discussion of the 10 newspapers that applied for membership (only four made it): http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=oid%3A166087 . I've cited Creative Loafing before and felt comfortable it was a reliable source. Are you concerned that citing these pubs would weaken an article's chance of surviving an Afd or the edits would end up being challenged or removed? I noticed you cited the living daylights out of your Cosmic Disco article, and it barely survived Afd. To me, the alt sources were the strongest part; all the citations and a seemingly trivial mention in a Guardian travel article just made it look *way* too eager. I don't mean to offend you, just help -- I got the article's notability, but I think it got buried. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that worried about AfDs, I'm just wondering whether there's any point in using alt-weeklies as sources, or if it's just another way of mimicking an encyclopedia format for subjects that don't actually meet Wikipedia's rarely-enforced standards. I mean the canonical response in an AfD to "that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published" would be "if the subject isn't covered in reliable sources, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." Also I don't want to be introducing or perpetuating false information, which is a real possibility since I often work on subjects that I don't really know anything about. Thanks for that link, I guess it's good to see that most of the papers I've been using are members of that association. As far as cosmic disco goes, I certainly know how borderline that article is. I never would have created it myself, I just tried to save it from unjust speedy deletion and improve it as much as I could. In general I tend to cite whatever I possibly can for a couple of reasons, although it's true that making things look notable is one of them.--P4k 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thanks for the thoughtful response.--P4k 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Witold Lawrynowicz as a reference

As illustrated by this diff [39], User:Piotrus thinks that the chemist Witold Lawrynowicz (bio at [40]), is a reliable source for a statement phrased as a fact. At issue is the Lithuanian motivation for not joining forces with the Poles during the Polish-Soviet War (a featured article). Lawrynowicz's assertion is not trivial. Novickas 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement phrased as a fact? Lawrynowicz writes "Lithuania joined the Soviet side in the war against Poland. This decision was dictated by the desire to incorporate Vilno into Lithuania and fear of the Red Army standing on Lithuanian borders", and this is what our article states (Lithuania's decision to not join forces with the Poles was dictated by a desire to incorporate the city of Wilno (in Lithuanian, Vilnius) and nearby areas into Lithuania and, to a lesser extent, Soviet diplomatic pressure, backed by the threat of the Red Army stationed on Lithuania's borders). As for his reliablity, while his professional degrees are in chemistry, he has been quite active in the area of history: prepared a series of lectures on "Armored Forces in the War of 1939", " Armored Units of Polish Armed Forces in the West" and "Polish Armored Forces before 1939". Participated in the organization of two historical exhibitions ... Worked on exhibition preparation, commentaries to the documentary films and descriptions for the exhibits and photographs ... prepared and presented series of lectures for the Polish National Alliance in Canada on the most important issues in the history of Poland... He has written numerous articles (101) printed in Poland, Great Britain, Canada and the USA discussing Polish and European history... A member of the editorial board of "Hetman," a historical magazine issued by the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York. He has published articles, edited and translated, and also lectured on military history for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York... as well as in other periodicals. The site cited above contains the list of about 150 articles and 1 book, on subjects of history. I think his reliability is pretty high.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Blumenthal in Salon

Sidney Blumenthal wrote what certainly appears to be a fact piece in Salon.com.[41][42] An editor called it an opinion piece and removed it. Is it reliable? ←Ben^B4 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is an opinion piece that is based on fact. Since Blumenthal is a noted journalist who specializes in politics, and Salon.com is a notable e-magazine, it certainly fits as a reliable source... but I would phrase any statements based on the piece with direct attribution, as in: "According to journalist Sidney Blumenthal..." Blueboar 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. An opinion cannot be asserted as fact, and needs to be attributed to the person that forwards it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what is being extracted from it. If you are using the article as a source for "X said Y on date t", then it probably does not need to be prefaced with "Blumenthal reports". Any interpretation ("X said Y, therefore B lied about WMD", for example) must be prefaced with Blumenthal's name. On a side note, the moment I saw this article I knew it would be up at RS/N before too long.reHornplease 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not quitel so clear cut, Hornplease... For example, if there is debate over whether X actualy did say Y on date t, then what any reporter says on the matter is more opinion than fact. Better to attribute such, even when not strictly needed. Blueboar 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is disputed in reliable sources, of course. Otherwise I would be doubtful of the necessity. Hornplease 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

The following article is being used to reference an quote in the Battle of Jenin article to present "evidence" of an Israeli war crime, could I get some input on whether this source meets RS: [43]. The wikipedia article seems to make me think that it wouldn't due to the WP:REDFLAG that the statement it is presenting causes. Kyaa the Catlord 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of particular note, the Gush Shalom article here notes that it is an activist group with a clear agenda against the Israeli "efforts" in Palestine. Kyaa the Catlord 07:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Telegraph linking to the document, describing it as an "eyewitness account". Here is Human Rights Watch citing the article and noting that a Gush Shalom translation is available, effectively vouching for it. Here is Teddy Katz referring to the article in a UN document. Here is the actual journalist discussing the article on a nationally syndicated American radio show - or perhaps they hired a voice actor? Can't trust those left-wingers!

Really, now, I previously brought to this noticeboard some alleged quotations that only showed up once on Google and was shot down for it. We are currently using one quote on the basis that a single editor says he called the news agency and verified that yes, an article with that title was published on that day (but he doesn't know what it said.) Now you're telling me that this extremely well-corroborated piece isn't good enough? I think the operating principle here is not WP:REDFLAG but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Eleland 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your ability to AGF startles my mind. I'd like to point out that I did not remove PR's inclusion of this material, I just asked for an uninvolved opinion on it. End transmission. Kyaa the Catlord 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not remove it, certainly. You asked around if there were grounds for removal. I.e. you were minded to remove it, if there was backing for your intention. Your second post talks about an 'activist group' with a clear agenda. Nearly all established RS sources on Israeli-Palestine issues are 'activist' in the sense that they publish articles for and against Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. Eleland is correct. Uri Avnery has been in Palestine/Israel since 1933, fought in the 48 war, was elected to the Knesset, can be said to be an insider intimately knowledgeable about Israel's politics and policies and his organization has not, to my knowledge, a reputation for falsifying documents. Samuel Katz's opinions are cited as evidence, correctly, for certain establishmentarian views on the Palestinian territories. I edit them, knowing them to be completely erroneous in substance, but do not erase them. Nor should Avnery's Gush Shalom perspectives be hustled off for having an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Look at the claim. A drunken, destitute former Israeli conscript claims that he drove drunk a piece of heavy machinery he did not know how to operate in an effort to lay waste to as many Palestinians as possible. This is simply linked to by reputable press agencies, not directly quoted, not swarmed by Christianne Ampour or any of the pro-Palestinian media. This exceptional claim does not have the sort of media coverage required by WP:REDLINK to meet the standards. Yes, I'd like to see it gone from the article, but rather than merely removing it myself, I came to the proper place to have sources checked against our RS standards. And I get gruff for it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better addressed by posting a Request for comment, as it is clearly a content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a translation of a piece of reportage published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper. Yediot Aharonot articles are cited all over Wikipedia. No one questions the reliability of it as a source. It fits all Wiki criteria. You take exception to the 'exceptional' claims made by the driver,i.e. you dispute the content. But the claims made don't have to be true, the source that prints them however has to be reliable. The only valid objection you might raise relates to possible errors in Gush Shalom's translation. I very much doubt that in a long article of that kind, you are going to encounter a systematic linguistic distortion of the claims made by the bulldozer driver. The source is Yediot Aharonot, not Gush Shalom.Nishidani 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My remarks about CAMERA above are equally applicable here, I think. If Gush Shalom is quoting a reliable source, then its best to go straight to the RS, confim it in context, and cite that. That being said, articles that are based in large part on the quotes selected by advocacy organisations of GS' type are, in my opinion, not the sort of thing we really want. Hornplease 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad as a reliable source

I asked this question above and didn't get much of a response. I have researched it some more and I believe TV Squad is a reliable source for television information, but they use the word blog so I'd like help making a determination. They're a part of Weblogs, Inc., like Engadget. This National Business Review article says about Engadget "If that sounds like a magazine, it should. Although it looks like a blog and acts like a blog, Engadget is a webzine (web-based magazine) dressed up like a blog." It says of Weblogs, Inc., "the content areas are covered by people who treat content production as a job." Also, that "An expert writes alone or in conjunction with others about a "hot" topic (gadgets, say), links to outside material and solicits feedback from the readership." They describe the system as "artificially-viral" and as a "blog-like, content-specific, web-only publication." TV Squad is indexed by google news. According to the Weblogs, Inc. site, they're "bloggers" are paid, they have a team of editors, and have a clear separation between advertising and editors. Their also part of AOL now. Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch

Is Quackwatch considered a Reliable Source?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering whether the Russell Blaylock article should mention that the three publications mentioned in the article as being associated with Dr. Blaylock are all listed as "unreliable" by QuackWatch. See discussion on the Talk page. NCdave 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else is hazarding any guesses, I'll try to answer my own question. I see that QuackWatch is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. So my tentative guess is "yes," QuackWatch is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Agreed? NCdave 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is more of a "yes... but". The wikipedia article on Quackwatch is very clear that it does not have any peer review, and you could argue that it falls under the category of "Self Published". However, the site has received enough attention and recognition by the medical community to move it into a category of reliability beyond most self published sites. Its opinions have become notable. My call... it can be used for statements of opinion (as in: "according to Dr. Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch, 'blah blah blah'"), but should not be relied on for statements of fact. Blueboar 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would second Blueboar's call. There is a definite POV associated with them, but they do have some legitimacy within the medical profession. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! NCdave 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Variety on Dragon Ball Z

An editor is contesting Variety, a trade paper for the Hollywood industry, as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film). While I am not arguing for the article to be kept, the editor does not believe that the information at the Variety article (seen here) is credible. Variety has been a completely acceptable resource per reliable source criteria, and I am having difficulty explaining to the editor that this is the case. His reason is that if it does not come directly from the studio, it does not count. I am completely positive that Variety is acceptable and have incorporated its information at Dragon Ball Z#Live-action film adaptation, but I'd like independent opinions to show the editor that Variety is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet external sources are not everything, every media can have its weakness, and in the context of the Dragon ball movie there has been so many bogus reports, that just a website is not enough. Fox has never confirmed the Variety report, and considerig the mass of fake reports about the DB movie, there is not enough reliability in it. Folken de Fanel 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Folken's comment, Variety is not "just a website". It is a trade paper, and the article in question has been published offline. Certainly, there have been bogus reports about details of the Dragon Ball Z film (see such reports here), but there is no reason to doubt the credibility of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Folken has not made a case to dispute the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed the Hollywood Reporter, which contains actual quotes from Fox employees. Which is not the case in the Variety article, which is, in absence of any concrete element, not a reliable source.Folken de Fanel 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can an independent editor weigh in on the validity of Variety as a source of verifiable coverage about this project? By all counts, Variety is a published, third-party source, and its mention of the project ought to qualify. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Variety is about as solid a source as you can get for potential new movies. I think though, this is a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. Movies get announced, cancelled, reborn, etc all the time in Hollywood. I'm still waiting for the ADV live action Evangelion.... Kyaa the Catlord 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

references used in Religious conversion and terrorism

Religious conversion and terrorism was an article that was deleted after an {{afd}} a few months ago.

I am considering initiating a full deletion review, because I thought the {{afd}} procedures followed did not conform to policy. I'll try to talk about the procedural flaws as little as possible here.

I asked for temporary content review and userification. The major complaint of the wikipedian who nominated the article was that the article was unreferenced. But they made this nomination after deleting all the references, and I thought at least some of those references were perfectly valid. And, after the nomination, they kept removing good-faith attempts to introduce new, valid references.

The first reference the artle referenced was published in the Toronto Star in 2004, entitled: "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". A link to the online version of this article was provided when the article was first written. It seems to have expired, or otherwise gone 404 by March of 2007. Here is my first question. If a reference cites the publication, the date, the page number, the title, and the byline, then does it remains just as valid a reference as when it was available online? Surely the article is just as authoritative when it is taken down from the newspaper's web-site? With the date, page number, title, etc, doesn't it remain verifiable? In this particular case we have the publication, title, date, but we don't have the page number. Is that all that is lacking to continue to use that reference?

There is another site that seems to have a copy of that article. If the site with the mirror has some kind of claim that the original copyright holder has given them permission to republish the material, it remains a valid reference? Correct? If so, which publication should one list as the publisher? New Yokr Times articles often remain freely available to non-subscribers only for about two weeks. But the New York Times bought the International Herald Tribune a few years ago. So, when we reference the copy of a New York Times article republished by the International Herald Tribune, do we list the NYT or the IHT as the publisher?

How much trust should we extended to republishers, that they formally acquired permission to republish material that has expired from the original publisher's web-site? The Toronto Star article I referred to is mirrored, in full, on the following sites:

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Rotten Tomatoes.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

The two sites mirror the first couple of hundred words.

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". altermedia.info.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". SITE Institute.

Presumably the last two didn't get permission, and think the first hundred words qualifies as "fair use"? The SITE quote actually contains enough material to substantiate that Dhiren Barot was accused of being a terrorist. But policy proscribes using it as a source, correct?

Thanks! Geo Swan 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some pages at the Toronto Star ([44], [45]) indicate that if an article is reprinted on the web with permission, a particular little icon will appear, the HTML frame is maintained by the Star, a copyright notice appears, etc. The sites listed above don't include those things, so it would seem they didn't get formal permission. However, lots of other info on the guy and on the concept are out on the Web - [46], [47], [48]. Best wishes, Novickas 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. But, what about the question of whether the original reference to the Toronto Star article remains just as verifiable and authoritative after it is removed from the Toronto Star site? Geo Swan 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question was addressed in a Wikipedia Mediation Cabal case [49], and the judgement (issued November 2006) was "If the content is copyrighted and does not have permission to use, Wikipedia can not use it." Novickas 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to have a reference to a mainstream newspaper (such as the Toronto Star) without it being available online. It is not appropriate to 'link' to copyrighted versions that do not have permission, but with the full reference to the article in question, people can go to the library to verify the article if they wish (either on microfiche or via archives such as ProQuest.) The requirement is that citations be from "reliable, third-party published sources" and while it is helpful for verification purposes that they not are verifiable on-line this is not a requirement at all. Thus, to me the Toronto Star article is perfectly acceptable given that title, date, author, page number etc are cited. --Slp1 19:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact based on Factiva archive search the article is from 2006. Here is the full reference from Factiva. "He embraced Islam, then terrorism; Briton, 34, confesses to murder plot-Conversion may have tempted Al Qaeda" by Sandro Contenta, Toronto Star 16 October 2006 The Toronto Star page A01. --Slp1 20:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the excellent advice. Geo Swan 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Related -- Referencing the NYTimes

If articles remain verifiable and authoritative after they are no longer available online, so long as we can supply the page number, in addition to the title, publication, date and author, then I have decided I am going to do my best to record the page number of the articles I cite, when they are still online.

The New York Times lists the page numbers of the articles in the current day's issue here. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html

I created a page to track NYTimes citations I have used, or might use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/NYTimes_articles

It's always a good idea to write the most complete citation possible for the day when a link goes dead. FYI, you can usually find dead newspaper links on web.archive.org as well. Dean Wormer 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

1. Saving local copies of articles, on my computer, constitutes fair use?
2. However, if someone questions whether an article that is no longer online supported my summary of what it said, forwarding them my local copy would not constitute fair use. correct?
3. Would there be any value of looking to organize a team of people who tried to maintain a central repository, on the wikipedia, of references, including the page numbers, likely to be commonly used, from publications that expire articles quickly?

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't think that citing the pages numbers is required (though obviously desirable): WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include.... page number(s)." BTW that page also confirms that if an article has actually been printed one can drop the link if it goes dead.[50]
I myself find that citation templates at WP:CITET are very helpful since they encourage the discipline of the adding the citation specifics, so that everything is there in proper form should the link disappear.
On the subject of article reference repositories, do you know about the Resource Exchange Project and the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service? If articles disappear, the folks there should be able to help get the full references and even the articles themselves for people, so a reference bank shouldn't be necessary, I don't think! --Slp1 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hte answers. So, when the page says drop the link, it means drop the URL? {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} don't like that though, as I recall...

No, I wasn't familiar with Resource Exchange Project and the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Times to End Charges on Web Site

The above link explains that the NYT is about to stop charging for access to their archives, so it will soon be much easier to link to these sources. Just take a deep breath and wait. It won't be long. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "drop link" means deleting a non-functioning url, and is okay assuming there is enough other info to allow the looking up the article by other means. {{cite web}} won't like it no url, for obvious reasons, but the other ones work fine without one.--Slp1 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Before "dropping" a link, check with web.archive.org to see if there is an archived version, which there often is with newspaper websites. When the Times switches to free articles, I would guess that a lot of existing URLs will change, so we may have some cleanup to do. Dean Wormer 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Times is doing redirects from the old TimesSelect archive links to the new free versions of the articles, but I agree that it's probably cleaner if we change our links to better ones. No rush, though, unless we get an indication that they're planning to dump the redirects at some point. JavaTenor 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Water fuel cell

This is a double post. It was already posted at Fringe Theory Notice Board however I believe the root of the problem is a lack of proper sources. See Admin Fringe Notice Board for more info or comments. --FR Soliloquy 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FR Soliloquy, just to clarify something for you... neither this page nor the Fringe theories/Noticeboard page are Admin pages. They are simply advice pages, mostly monitored by regular editors who have worked on the related guideline/policy pages and want to help others. I have modified your comment to reflect this.

That does not answer your concern about the Water fuel cell page, however. Could you be more exact as to the problem you see? Blueboar 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

User:Artikalflex has recently inserted new text, critical of William Wilberforce into the article, and backed it up with references to this essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf To most of the other editors on this article, this seems to have rather a polemic tone, and whilst the essay seems superficially well-referenced (including references to sources already used in our Wilberforce article) two major issues have already been identified which bring its overall status into doubt. There is are significant factual errors in identifying Paul Foot as the son (actually nephew) of Michael Foot who is claimed to be a former British Prime Minister (actually Leader of the Opposition). A large section of the essay is also devoted to Wilberforce's purported treatment of a supposed Agnes Bronte. The website from which these claims originate http://freespace.virgin.net/pr.og/agnes.html appears to be a fairly obvious spoof. Adam Hochschild is also widely quoted in the essay, however, an online article written by him, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml , whilst somewhat critical is far more balanced in tone, suggesting the possibility of selective quoting for this and other references used. Finally, the essay is to all intents and purposes self-published, the actual author is not clearly identified. Personally it appears to me that this source is far from reliable in our terms. Views? David Underdown 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment of the essay at Afrikanliberationdaylondon.com. While the essay is sourced, the host site is clearly a "Self-Published" site by our standards, and thus not reliable. Given that you have other sources that discuss some of the same material, I think you should go with those. Blueboar 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion may be somewhat moot since Artikalflex is no longer wishing to cite the essay. However, for multiple reasons, (including the inclusion of the Agnes Bronte story which suggests it is not well-researched) I would agree that the essay is not a reliable source of information, for Wikipedia purposes. --Slp1 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Artikalflex

this is the section of text i want to enter

Abolition of Slavery

After the abolition of the slave trade, William Wilberforce was not immediately concerned with the abolition the Slavery. Britain heavily depended on the suffering of Africans to sustain their economy, the love of money generated from the Slave plantations continued to overshadow a collective sense of morality. During this time, even the Church of England’s morality was in limbo as Bishops were still allowed to purchase slaves and the Church still owned slave plantations. Wilberforce’s morality also came into question as he advocated that the whipping of slave should not stop, but instead, the slaves should only be whipped at night.

Slave Plantation owners now became concerned with where they were going to get their new slaves from. Wilberforce had no objections to his colleagues who recommended that African people be bred like animals, as a substitute to boosting the African population in the lave Plantations. Thus subjecting, Africans to more trauma and rapes.

Mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch an anti-slavery society in 1823, 16 years after the abolition of the slave trade. The formal name of the organization was the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery which was more commonly known as the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) in 1823. SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for at least 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’.

In the light of an increasing frequency of slave revolts and growing public contempt, in May 1830, SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery.

these paragraphs are well referenced from the books

Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild 2005 p.314, Hart 2006 p.3, Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams 1944 p.182

David Underdown has been continually complaining about ...

Issue 1: reference to a polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf

Yes it is a polemic essay, but that has no bearing on the credibility of the passages which are referenced in books written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister.

Issue 2: fault finding in the polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf.

To add credibility to David Underdown mission he complains about some parts of the essay which i have not referenced at all, Wilberforce's relations to a prositute. David Underdown has concentrated his efforts on disproving something which i have not referenced. With an attitude like David Underdown we could all discredit the bible by saying it took longer than 7 days to create the world or the world is more than 20,000 years old. [David Underdown|David Underdown]] please refrain from using such a juvenile attitude.

Issue 3: references are week ie. http://www.sturgetown.com/sturge.html

David Underdown has not made any formal complaint about this reference.

Issue 4: "seems superficially well-referenced (including references to sources already used in our Wilberforce article)" by David Underdown

What makes my references superficial? I have not changed the context in which the references were written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister. Have you claimed ownership over the essay,? thats a bit polemic, anti-Wiki and undemocratic.

Issue 5: Use http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml as a reference, written by Adam Hochschild.

You have already used that article, i am happy for you and i hope no one forced you to use that article. i chose to use Adam Hochschild book as a reference instead. How can you have a problem with that in our democratic land of freedom?

Artikalflex

Vanity page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Stone is a vanity page StaticElectric 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is no page with that name.... irrelevant. But this would not be the place to complain about it. Blueboar 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a better place on the list of reporting pages. StaticElectric 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy deleted--Slp1 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct ways to report this are to use the {{db-bio}} template to tag it as a page about a non-notable person (if as in this case it really make absolutely no assertion of notability and is eligible for speedy deletion), WP:PROD to propose that the page be removed if it is not eligible for speedy deletion but not worth much discussion, or use the full WP:AFD process if the prod is contested. —David Eppstein 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hosted content

My specific concern is with videos hosted on Youtube, but the same principle applies to any hosted source. I'm currently citing videos like these as sources about the filming of the Harry Potter movies. The actual video (whose copyright status on Youtube is very dubious!) is a documentary by Grenada television which, of itself, is a highly reliable source (exclusive access to backstage footage, interviews with cast, crew, directors, etc). It is clearly presented verbatim on Youtube and as such essentially Youtube merely acts as an archive. Is there any reason why Youtube being the host makes it an unreliable source? I know WP:SPS but this would seem not to be applicable since it's not really self published. Happy-melon 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say you can certainly cite to the original video (citation should be to the original as well... listing Granada as the "Publisher" or what ever)... so the question becomes, can you use the version hosted on Youtube as a "convenience link". That depends on the copywrite status. Blueboar 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the copyright status of the video is Youtube's problem, not ours. The only consideration is that if the video is not in copyright it is more likely to be removed, causing linkrot. Thankyou for the reassurance though. Happy-melon 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope... it is our problem as well. See: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Why not just cite the original video and not bother with the link to youtube. Avoids all problems Blueboar 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh.... well you learn something new every day, don't you! I'd better change my links (fortunately they're on a project subpage atm). Any suggestions as to which cite template to use? I had been using {{cite web}} but that requires a URL. Happy-melon 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the templates... I prefer manual citations of the <ref>citation info</ref> form. Templates force you into a format that does not always fit. Blueboar 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

washington times

requesting comments regarding source's reliability

here - [51].

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, it seems none of the references to The Washington Times actually link to the cited articles on the newspaper website, so the Times reliability isn't yet the issue. Flowanda | Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the article's publication and text have been validated so the first link is the one you should be looking at if you want to go over the entire article (p.s. from camera's quotes we've validated about 46 out of 50 so there's no reason to believe any of them is false). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has, and I'm sure you're all sincere and diligent, but that doesn't mean the sources meet WP:RS or that the citations will survive once you're not around to protect them (i.e. if you believe that Wikipedia is around for the long haul and that its core policies will prevail). As a casual reader of this article--I'm totally clueless about the subject, btw--I'm not going to dig through all the discussion and the edit histories of the editors involved in this obviously volatile article to figure out who or what is verifiable and believable. Like the majority of readers, I'm going to read the article and if, for some reason, I look or click on the actual links in the citation and end up somewhere else beside the Washington Times, then chances are good the warning bells are going to go off, and I'm going to begin questioning all the facts and everybody's intent.

Do you see what I am getting at? This is not about individual editors or somebody's word, but about doing the hard work now to find rock-solid NPOV facts and sources that keep editors from arguing about this exact same issue 10 years from now, or constant fighting about including equally unverified sources and content. Short term, you may gain exception to use these sources and even list them as Washington Times articles; long term, well, the edits will go away unless they are soundly sourced and can be easily verified and updated as Wikipedia and online archiving improve. If you want this article -- and your edits/sources -- to live beyond you, then source the facts and references strictly to WP:RS, not to prevailing, temporary opinion or current tolerance. Flowanda | Talk 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article claims to be quoting the Washington Times in one of the instances of footnote 25, but the footnote itself cites someone else's web site. And other instances of that footnote don't mention the paper. If you want to source something to a newspaper, source it by stating the article title, newspaper name, and publication date, not by linking to somebody else's page purportedly quoting the paper. It may be ok to include a note saying that parts of the article are quoted on a web site, after the proper citation, but the proper citation needs to be there. As for material sourced in the same footnote to CAMERA but not sourcable to a major newspaper or similar: the WP article on CAMERA states that it takes a non-neutral pov, so its reliability seems dubious for claims beyond "one side of the dispute takes the position that..." —David Eppstein 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede is available without paying for it (preview) and this contains the key claim cited here. When numerous ([52], [53], [54]) mirror sites have an apparently identical article - and their ideological biases are all over the place - I think it's safe to treat it as a legitimate source. This being said, Paul Martin ("Sayed Anwar") of the Washington Times was very publically, and very credibly, accused of repeated journalistic fraud on CBC Television, an accusation which has not been retracted or, to my knowledge, credibly disputed. That's the real issue. Eleland 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it...I see the problem you're trying to solve, but the citations seem misleading when they go somewhere else other than the website page that's listed...changing the citations to include the actual source and the reasons they're being used would help clarify their use. I also see other ways editors will probably challenge the sources-the sites you listed may have pulled the exact text from the article itself, but they might have all pulled it from altered sources...and if they're not considered reliable sources, there's still no way for readers to easily verify for themselves. And I noticed one of the sites you listed above listed a fair use for research notice at the bottom...do the sources cited in the article have permission/exception to publish the entire Times article on their sites? Flowanda | Talk 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

webpages critical of psychoanalysis as sources

Could I just get a second and third opinion on this. This webpage was being used a source in Jacques Lacan - specifically the criticism section. It was added by User:MarkAnthonyBoyle [55]. That webpage is an abstract for a book which hasn't been published - so as far as I can see this aint reliable in WP's terms. This page is also used - I consider this to be a self-published review and therefore not a reliable source. The third source I'm questioning is International Network of Freud Critics whose "intent is to broadcast relevant information about the fabrications, the lies, and the disinformation of the Freudians". That statement alone makes me dubious but I can find no peer-review or editorial systems on the site - it is also obviously partisan (but that seems no longer to be in violation of the WP:RS guideline). In summary I think these links fail WP:RS but I wanted to bring this to a wider forum for discussion. Any views?--Cailil ^talk 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This does appear to be a self published source. If it is actually an abstract of a published work, then the published work should be cited, with the web page as a convenience link. Is this person a recognized expert with other publications in this area of expertise? Do his opinions reflect a significant viewpoint? That might make it usable, as long as third parties are not defamed. - Dean Wormer 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well as far as I can see there is no book. Filip Buekens has one book in dutch (Title translates roughly as "People are intentions") and he has a paper criticizing Lacan's use of metaphor but the content of this abstract is yet to be published as far as I can see.--Cailil ^talk 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Astonishing. Yes I suppose I was borderline incivil, it was early in the morning when I woke up to find that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters had deleted criticism with tag lines such as <start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms">, <clean up rambing and personalistic rants> and <rm rant that is cited only to blogs> Sorry if I took his good natured chiding for something else. In the process of his editing he removed the following: (diff) (hist) . . Jacques Lacan‎; 20:19 . . (-436) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms" added by anon)

“In psychoanalitic practice charging a full fee for a 5-minute session (varying of the length of the sessions) is considered un-ethical because there are other ways to confront the client with sticking to the same material. In Lacan's biography written by Roudinesco it is told that during sessions Lacan sometimes got his hair cut and received pedicures “(p. 391) .

This reference is a quote from Richard D. Chessick, M.D., Ph.D. (google scholar 212 articles) From a book review A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique by Bruce Fink professor of psychology at Duquesne University. The review was published online at The American Journal of Psychiatry, which claims “According to ISI’s Journal Citation Report, The American Journal of Psychiatry has an impact factor of 7.16, which ranks it 2nd among 87 journals in psychiatry. The Journal is 1st among psychiatric publications in total citations, with nearly 30,000 citations per year.”

. Jacques Lacan‎; 20:40 . . (-1,325) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (clean up rambing and personalistic rants) In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superficial erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand
Lost the following elucidation: “(e.g., confusing irrational numbers and imaginary numbers). Richard Webster is strongly critical of Lacan's ideas, invoking the phrase "the cult of Lacan." ”

Filip Buekens (Aalst, Belgium, °1959) is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Tilburg University. He studied linguistics and philosophy at the universities of Leuven (Belgium) and Cologne (Germany) and obtained his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1991 on the philosophy of language, mind and action of Donald Davidson, on whose work he published two monographs. His current research interests are the interface of semantics and pragmatics, truth-conditional semantics and Gricean reasoning about meaning. He (sometimes) defends a position known as minimalist semantics. He has also published on analytic metaphysics and formal ontologies in medicine, issues in the philosophy of action (attempts, deontic logic) and has written two books on the foundations of analytic philosophy and the nature of reference. He is currently working on a long-term project on the structure, content and value of truth and the metaphysical nature of experiences. Recently he undertook an excursion into psychoanalysis and its role in the history of postmodernist thought. His key publications include: Buekens, F. (1994), 'Externalism, Content, and Causal Histories', in Dialectica 1994 (48), p. 267-286; Buekens, F., W. Ceusters, G. De Moor (1997a), 'TSMI: a CEN/TC51 Standard for Time Specific Problems in Healthcare Informatics and Telematics', in International Journal of Medical Informatics 46 (1997), 87-101; Buekens, F. (1997b), 'A Decision Procedure for Von Wright's OBS-Calculus', in Logique et Analyse 149 (1995), 43-55; Buekens, F. (2001b), 'Essential Indexicality and the Irreducibility of Phenomenal Concepts', in Communication and Cognition 34, 75-97; Buekens, F. (2005b), 'Pourquoi Lacan est-il si obscur?' in M. Borch-Jacobson & J. Van Rillaer (eds.), Livre Noir de la Psychanalyse, Paris: les arenas, 2005, pp. 269-278 (also translated in Italian and Spanish and chinese) Buekens, F. (2005a), 'Compositionality, Abberrant Sentences and Unfamiliar Situations', in Edouard Machery, Markus Werning, and Gerhard Schurz (Eds.), The Compositionality of Meaning and Content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience. Series: Linguistics & Philosophy, 2, Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp. 83-103

Filip Buekens of Tilburg University has made several studies of Lacan's work and concluded "on the basis of a careful analysis of texts of Lacan, his followers (‘Orthodox Lacanians’) and his interpreters in France and elsewhere (‘Interpreters’), that what they claim and defend is based on fallacious arguments, equivocations, intellectual bluff-poker and a consistent abuse of concepts from other sciences. The result is an intellectual charade."[[56]][[57]]"Lacan is a philosophical charlatan, and not just because he tried to turn a pseudo-science (psychoanalysis) into a ‘science of the subject’."[[58]].

Professor R.C. Tallis claims that he was a psychopath who, "listened to no truths other than those which confirmed his own hypotheses...he projected not only his own theories on madness in women but also his own fantasies and family obsessions". "His lunatic legacy also lives on in places remote from those in which he damaged his patients, colleagues, mistresses, wives, children, publishers, editors, and opponents—in departments of literature whose inmates are even now trying to, or pretending to, make sense of his utterly unfounded, gnomic teachings and inflicting them on baffled students."[[59]]

RC Tallis, MA, MRCP, FRCP, F MedSci, DLitt, was Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 55 articles on pubmed (PubMed, available via the NCBI Entrez retrieval system, was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), located at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).) 13 citations on Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Guest speaker at The Royal College of Physicians,

Article is about 5400 words, do you think there may be room for some balance in the interests of NPOV? Or perhaps we should start a POV fork?MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • MarkAnthonyBoyle, nobody is casting aspersions on the qualifications of any of these scholars. The matter is simple. The sites you link to don't measure up to wikipedia's standard for what is a reliable source. If you can access Buekens article criticizing Lacan's use of metaphor then go ahead and use that - becuase these webpages are all self-published and therefore not reliable sources. I will remind you, now for the second time that wikipedia is not a soapbox - please re-read WP:TALK to see how to correctly use a talkpage. The above post was also added verbatim by MarkAnthonyBoyle to Talk:Jacques Lacan--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, I suggest you have a quick look at the post I put on User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters page. I simply do not understand why you consider criticism of Lacan or Freud from highly respected scholars in those fields to be soapboxing, other than that they hold a different view to yours. I think these short quotes are concise, and provide NPOV balance.MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark I'm glad you and Lulu are working together productively. Again the problems above are not the scholars or the criticism or their views. Comments like "Article is about 5400 words, do you think there may be room for some balance in the interests of NPOV? Or perhaps we should start a POV fork?" are not-constructive and are soapboxing. That said I do see that the issue has moved on and I hope that you and Lulu improve the article. I consider this issue to be resolved now--Cailil ^talk 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ars Technica news?

Is Ars Technica a usable source for IT and technology related news? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars is the main source. I asked here but got no response, so wanted to be bold and cross-check. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 06:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the site is a mix of e-Zine (considered reliable) and a blog (not considered reliable). I looked to see if the site contained any sort of statement that would tell me the degree of editorial oversight that occurs. Unfortunately, I did not find such a statement (that does not mean they don't have oversight... it just means that we don't know if they do or not). Certainly we can not include the "readers comments" that go along with the articles... so the question centers on the articles themselves. Do the contributers have a reputation for accuracy in IT journalism? What is the reputation of the web site? These are all questions that have to be asked, and without knowing the answers I can not say if the site is reliable. It probably also depends on what you are trying to cite it for. Blueboar 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that they have a good reputation, as they are often cited. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a prolific reader of IT sites and holder of a BSc(Hons) in Computer Science I can say that many of Ars Technica's articles, particularly on CPU technology, have a higher than average quality in their class. By 'their class' I mean commercial non-academic sites, because you cannot, of course, compare an IT site, or a newspaper, or an encyclopedia, with academic sources. If the question is whether Ars Technica can be cited in Wikipedia (which is non-academic), my answer is a loud yes. Note that at least one Ars technica editor has had PhD training (albeit, IIRC, not in CS). NerdyNSK 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Final question... is someone objecting to using it? (if so, why?) If not, I would say be BOLD and use it. If someone objects later, you can always revisit the issue. Blueboar 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on a brief perusal of the site, it's my belief that we can use the content from the "news" and "articles" sections as reliable sources (as it appears those sections are all editorially reviewed), but not from the "journals" area (which hosts more informal blog-style posts from the writers). JavaTenor 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Court order is Neutral source or not

There is a discussion on [60] where one adminJossi is of the opinion that High court order cannot be considered as Neutral source of information and Newspaper article is not a verifiable source of information. Request input from other experienced wikipedia user's to give their input as if a High court order is considered Neutral WP:NPOV or not, also can a national newspaper article be used as a verifiable source of information ? Rushmi 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rushmi has grossly misrepresented the issue here. He states that he simply wants to know if a court order and a newspaper article can be used as sources. What he fails to disclose is that the newspaper article in question was ruled defamatory by a trial court, and that the court order has nothing to do with the article topic itself, but is about a jurisdictional/procedural issue about whether or not an individual can sue for defamation if a group they belong to has been defamed (and the higher court held "yes"). --Renee 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My Question is same, we are not to discuss the neutrality of court judgement, is a court judgement a neutral WP:NPOV Reliable WP:RS or not ? Is wikipedia considered a place where neutrality of a court order is questioned ? Same goes with National newspaper article. Is an article published in a national newspaper article considered as varifiable and reliable source of information or not. Rushmi 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in the abstract, and not about this particular article... court judgments are considered Reliable Sources for statements of fact about what they say, but not for statements of broader interpretation of what the judgment means. Newspaper articles in general are certainly considered reliable sources, but whether a specific newpaper article is reliable depends on circumstances. As far as NPOV goes... sources don't have to be neutral, but any statements you wish to make in a wikipedia article that are based upon the sources them do have to written with NPOV in mind.

Now applying all of this to the article in question ... What seems to be the key here is whether all of this is actually relevant to the article topic. Remember that not every pov or fact needs to be included in a given article (see: WP:NPOV#Undue Weight). It actually sounds as if there is some OR going on... assuming that the court judgement and the newspaper article all relate directly to the topic of the article. Blueboar 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail? (UK)

Well, I'm from the US, so, I'm not terribly familiar with this publication. It's article Daily Mail, describes it as a tabloid, so, I think it's somewhat dubious. As do others. I'd really love to get some opinions, particularly, from other editors, more familiar with this publication, as to if the Daily Mail is a reliable source, that we can use at Man vs. Wild. Presently, it is being used as a reference. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 03:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious does not equate to unreliable. I would be inclined to double check anything cited to the Daily Mail, and see if I could find a better source... but the paper does fall on the reliable side of the line (just). Blueboar 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The things sourced from the Daily Mail for Man vs. Wild seem acceptable. The same basic story is being reported from several outlets. Someone already pointed this out on the Talk page of the article: The Daily Mail is one of many dozens of papers that have carried the stories. Even the NYT has carried it. This is not as difficult to decide as a report that Person X has used drugs or embezzled money, where we would be looking for ironclad editorial scrutiny, something more likely to be found at NYT than the Daily Mail. EdJohnston 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider.com

There is a minor debate going on within WP:PW about whether or not pwinsider.com, which, from the notice I got when I went to save this page the first time, is blacklisted currently, really is a reliable source or not. We aren't sure if this is a peer reviewed, neutral, and scholarly site or not. Some say that it amounts to a dirtsheet, others say that it is a reputable, secondary or third party source. I figured that it would be a good idea leave this up to the pros at this noticboard. Peace, The Hybrid 05:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is blacklisted, I would say it is not considered a reliable source. Do we know why it was blacklisted? Blueboar 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting just means it was being spammed. In this case, I know little about the subject, but two things make me skeptical of its reliability. First, I'm just skeptical of any site that assaults me with that much advertising. Second, the stories of theirs I loaded are all repubs of stories that are posted elsewhere, and so I tend to suspect that we could just go to the original source and cite that instead. Phil Sandifer 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, this site IS the original source for the most part. That's why I believe it's a useful site. Mshake3 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: nonsense votes

I hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I would appreciate if some mods would look at and advise/vote per the reasons given by some posters for keeping the world public speaking championships... they seem partisan and nonsensical. cheers.JJJ999 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is canvassing, and this isn't really the proper place to ask about this... it isn't really a question about reliable sources, but about comments on an AfD. Blueboar 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry K. Beecher

Within past edits of the Henry K. Beecher article, there were allegations medical ethics abuses: namely CIA experimentation and continuation of Nazi research. These claims seem to be based upon two sources. There is an ongoing conversation between another editor and I on whether these fit WP:V criteria, and I was hoping if people could comment:

1. A German-language documentary: Koch, Egmont R.: Folterexperten-Die geheimen Methoden des CIA (English: Torture Experts - The Secret Methods of the CIA), TV-Documentary in German Televison SWR about secret CIA-prisons in post-war Germany, 9th July 2007, Showing original CIA-documents which have been released recently.
2. Presumably recently declassified CIA documents: Beecher, Henry K. Top Secret Control, (SD-34990). Harvard Medical School, Boston/Massachusetts for Colonel John R.Wood, Department of the Army, 10/21/1951, National Security Archives.
3. Of note, I could not find these declassified documents on several searches. However, the other editor (Rfortner (talk) has stated that these should be available upon request from the documentary producers, for which he has contact information for. Would this violate WP:NOR?

Djma12 ^(talk) 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

when citing non-English material, it is reasonable to provide an English transcription. It does not have to be a published one, because the veracity can be checked by comparing with the original. But unpublished documents in archives cannot be directly cited--however a reputable TV documentary is considered a RS, and if it refers to the documents, that can be stated. It is of course subject to contradiction or criticism from other sources--the way to go is to look for published comments on that program and insert those references also.DGG (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements that "cannot be disproven"

In the article Dave the Barbarian (character), a user named AKR619 has repeatedly added statements about an alleged relationship between two characters. Supposedly, there was a set of Disney Channel commercials featuring several characters (Lizzie McGuire, Kim Possible and Dave the Barbarian) in a romantic relationship that, according to AKR619, got Disney Channel into a problem with the FCC.

However, I can find no evidence of the incident, nor of the commercials. The statements are unsourced, but supposedly commercials can act as a source. However, I do not remember such commercials, nor can I find any information on them. The user refuses to post any discussion about the relationship, nor discussion of the commercials, nor links to the videos.

I tagged the statements as unsourced material, later removing it after my research came up empty. he then reverted my deletion. Later I deleted it again, posting that unsourced statements should be removed or sourced. His reply was that since it was a commercial, that counts as the source, and reverted my deletion again.

I made an RFC which yielded no reply.

The idea that Disney Channel would do such a thing like this as described seems more than unlikely to me, especially being mainly a children's channel. It also seems unlikely that such a commercial would not come up as a result of extensive internet search. I seek only the truth. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically all they did was take scenes from the shows and edit them together so they 'worked' for the commercials. Ridiculously non-canon; at best trivia. HalfShadow 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)